Good? Did anyone hit you in the head with a skateboard when you were running from a mob? Did someone who had previously threatened to kill you chase you down while someone else was shooting behind you? I'm glad you didn't need to kill anyone. He did. He was working with other people. Did you watch the videos or the trial? I have no more issue with him going to a protest/riot than anyone else. If a kid wants to volunteer to help fight wildfires, I would hope they let him. Actually, Grosskreutz was a prohibited person and it was illegal for him to possess a firearm, so he was a criminal two times over. When Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at him, Grosskreutz backed off and put his hands up. Rittenhouse then stopped pointing his rifle at him and Grosskreutz advanced on him and pointed his Glock at him again, at which point Rittenhouse shot him. At that point he did not have a right to point his firearm at Rittenhouse (which is why it was lawful self-defense for Rittenhouse to shoot him).
I'm assuming you are missing a step here because I don't know how this paragraph justifies Rittenhouse and btw I do believe the verdict was correct. Are you saying that Rittenhouse pointed a firearm first at a person who put his hands up?
I assumed @rocketsjudoka was familiar with the order of events since he referenced part of it, so I was only addressing what happened post Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Grosskreutz. Starting earlier in time, Rittenhouse is running toward the police and away from a mob when someone punches him in the back of the head, knocking him down. Maurice Freeland (known during the trial only as Jump Kick Man) then jumps up and kicks Rittenhouse in the face, and Rittenhouse fires two shots at him, missing. He is then hit with a skateboard by Huber, who also grabs the barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle and Rittenhouse shoots him once in the chest, killing him. Gauge Grosskreutz then approaches Rittenhouse with his pistol aimed in his direction (unclear from the angle of the videos available if directly at him, or just in the area), at which time Rittenhouse turns his rifle toward Grosskreutz who puts his hands up and comes to an immediate stop. Rittenhouse then lowers his rifle and Grosskreutz advances again, pointing his pistol back at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse then shoots him once in the arm, causing him to retreat. Rittenhouse then gets up and continues running to the police.
The state of the GOP when a guy like Kanye West is getting invited to have discussions with Trump... Also, the state of Kanye West hanging out with a theocratic white nationalist... Man, religion is a helluva drug to make you friends with a guy wanting to send the military into black neighborhoods just because he too wants to make America a Christian nation...and what is that about Trump being impressed with Fuentes? Yikes. What's the equivalent of this with the democrats? Do we have Biden meeting with people like this?
The racists of the GOP chanting White Boy Summer. Nick Fuentes and his White Nationalist racists are a disturbing bunch.
During a riot in Berkeley I was assaulted by three people who grabbed me and slammed me against a car. Other than getting my camera broken I was able to escape. I also had a CHP officer swing a billy club at my head even though I was with press. I ducked. I didn't show up open carrying and didn't use lethal force even though at the time I had already been doing martial arts for years and was competing for CAL Judo. He didn't go there with a plan and did work with some of the people there. Some of the people who he did work with said they felt he was very inexperienced and didn't seem to know what he was doing. Seriously you would be willing to allow an untrained teen to put themselves into an extremely dangerous situation? Again even accepting that Rittenhouse's motives were pure the fact that he was assaulted shows that his life was put into danger and that he's lucky things didn't go much worse for him. And Rittenhouse under WI law shouldnt have had his weapon. There is a pic showing both of them pointing their firearms at each other. As has been stated before though Grosskruetz had the right to confront potentially deadly force with deadly force and he was never charged in the situation. That Rittenhouse for a moment stopped pointing his weapon at him still doesn't change that from Grosskruetz's POV he had been threatened with a firearm and at any moment Rittenhouse could still shoot him and did. This is a case where both have a claim self-defense. To restate yes there was plenty of reasonable doubt to not convict Rittenhouse. That doesn't mean it was a good idea to allow him to be there. Part of the job of LEO is to keep the public safe. Allowing an untrained boy open carrying into a riot zone is anything but that.
This page pretty much shows how much ideology is overuling common sense. We're so afraid of LGBTQ "grooming" our kids we should pass laws to keep government from taking our kids and turning them LGBTQ.. If a kid wants to risk their life going into a riot zone so they can play cop and firefighter, go ahead.
Anyone who believes that is just plain ignorant. It's as ignorant as the people who used to think "negroes" would give them some kind of disease if they swam in the same pool, drank from the same water fountain, or sat on the same toilet. It's just ignorance. If they do it out of plain bigotry or racism it's even worse. There is far too much of this crap spewing from the mouths of right wing politicians. It's toxic and hateful. They are either ignorant, bigots, or racists, or a combination of all three.
I am glad you didn't need to kill anyone. Do you think that because you didn't need to kill anyone when you were attacked that no one ever needs to? If not, I don't understand your point. Rittenhouse was attacked by people that tried to take his weapon, guns were fired right behind him while he was being chased, he was attacked by multiple people while trying to run to law enforcement, was attacked by multiple people after he had been knocked to the ground, and had a gun pointed at him. Apparently, he did have a plan. He planned to defend the car source, put out fires (hence carrying a fire extinguisher), and provide medical assistance. We know he had a plan because he stated said plan out loud and it was recorded on video. That some people said he didn't seem to know what he was doing is not very meaningful to me. He seemed to do fine. Yes, if they choose to do so. I am in favor of freedom. If you want to go try to fight fires, go for it. If you want to defend your town from civil unrest, do it. I am not a nanny for every teen in America. Of course his life was put into danger. It was put into danger because people attacked him. This is false. The court dismissed the charge against him for illegal possession of a firearm because the prohibition against 16 and 17 year olds open carrying only applies if they are violating one of three other statutes (two hunting related and one against possession of short barreled rifles or shotguns). I showed the video and the testimony of Grosskruetz. The issue is Grosskruetz initiated the confrontation with Rittenhouse. You cannot assault someone with your gun and then claim the right of self-defense when they back you off by pointing a gun at you. Grosskruetz wasn't charged because he had a reasonable but mistaken belief that he was defending others. The mob that attacked Rittenhouse believed he was a murderer and possibly active shooter. When Rittenhouse shot at one person and shot and killed another right in front of Grosskruetz, it was reasonable to confront him. Because Rittenhouse was not an active shooter or murderer fleeing the scene, he did not have to submit to the mob or Grosskruetz. It is not the job of law enforcement officers to prevent people from taking legal actions. That would be false arrest. The only way they could prevent him from being there was enforcement of the curfew, but it was clear that was not happening to any of the other people there.
His tax free exemption should cease! No right wing preacher spewing hate should get his taxes paid by the citizens of this country.
Nah fick that. Overnight when his church isn't occupied, you burn that building. Anyone scolding those people who do it are defending the right for someone to express genocide rhetoric and **** that , burn the building down. Make them scared for their lives. Anyone who says I don't respect free speech because I want to make people who express explicit genocide desires to fear for their lives at every corner, well **** you if that is what you are going to define as free speech, than no I'm not a free speech advocate.
it should, but there will be no consequences…Churches are basically extensions of the pastor’s political party these days
