Heres how your typical discussion of the Rittenhouse incident, *post trial*, tends to go. Its something like this:
“Well, the pudgy-faced¹ loser should’ve known that there were consequences for his actions!”
“But he was being chased. Why?”
“Because he shot someone!”
“Okay, yeah, but before that? Why?”
“W-what do you mean? There was no before that!”
“He was being chased before he shot someone. Why?”
“Staph wasting my tiiiime! Stupid! You’re stupid! Waaaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!”
You see, those who believe that Kyle Rittenhouse committed murder², even after the trial, have an inability to digest the facts.
The facts are pretty clear, and point to a sound conclusion.
Did Rittenhouse kill someone? Yes. The Jury could not deny this fact, even if they wanted to, because this was all captured on camera and they could see it.
Was Rosenbaum the one killed? Yes.
What was Rosenbaum doing before being killed? First he was stationed behind a car, then he was chasing after Rittenhouse after appearing from behind the car he was standing by.
Did Rittenhouse note Rosenbaum was there before being chased by Rosenbaum? It appears Rittenhouse didn't notice Rosenbaum was there before being chased. Even if Rittenhouse did notice Rosenbaum, judging by the drone camera footage of Rittenhouse's behavior, Rittenhouse apparently thought nothing more of Rosenbaum's presence in the area.
Did Rittenhouse threaten Rosenbaum? No.
Prior to the minutes of the shooting, Did Rittenhouse raise his gun towards Rosenbaum?Also no.
Did Rosenbaum present a threat to Rittenhouse?To begin with, its reasonable for any given person to interpret "someone chasing them" as "someone presenting a threat to them". Rittenhouse saw that Rosenbaum was chasing him, so its fair for Rittenhouse to interpret Rosenbaum's actions as a threat. Additionally, according to witnesses that night, Rosenbaum was acting beligerently, was involved in setting a dumpster on fire, and had made direct vocal threats to others including Rittenhouse. Before shooting, Rittenhouse first fled Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse's initial reaction the reflects the behavior of someone being threatened.
Those are the facts for Rosenbaums killing, and it points to his killing being done in self defense. Wheres the ambiguity?
Did Rittenhouse kill someone else, or a second person? Yes. The jury could not deny or overlook this fact either, because it was caught on Camera and the jury could see it.
Was Anthony Huber the one killed? Yes.
What was Rittenhouse doing prior to killing Huber? Fleeing and stumbling to the ground
What was Huber doing before he was killed? Attempting with a skateboard to strike Rittenhouse, who again was fleeing,
Did Huber present a threat to Rittenhouse? Attempting to strike someone with a blunt object is by definition attempting to assault them. This is also a threat to life, as its not unheard of for someone to be killed by blows to the head with a skateboard. Nor is it hard to understand that a blow to the head with a skateboard could kill someone.
Those facts point to Huber being killed in Self Defense. Again, wheres the ambiguity?
Did Rittenhouse shoot and injure someone? Yes. Once more, the jury couldn't deny this because it was seen on camera, and they could see it.
Was Gaige Grosskreutz the one who was shot and injured? Yes. In fact, Grosskreutz came to court to witness as much, that Rittenhouse shot and injured him.
What was Grosskreutz doing before Rittenhouse shot and injured him? Grosskreutz had been running towards Rittenhouse, who was on the ground. Rittenhouse aimed at Grosskreutz, causing Grosskreutz to back away briefly, and Rittenhouse lowered his long gun. *Then* Grosskreutz decided to run towards Rittenhouse, with Grosskreutz weilding and aiming his own handgun³ at Rittenhouse.
This moment, that is the first time Grosskreutz backed away, taken all together, could be interpreted as a feint, or a deceptive movement.
Did Grosskreutz present a threat to Rittenhouse? Raising and aiming ones firearm towards someones person is a threat in the minds of every reasonable person. In addition to that, Grosskreutz said in court that he had raised his firearm towards Rittenhouse.
All those facts, for the final time, point to a shooting being done in self defense. Perhaps in situations where the facts aren't clear, its fair for people to come to diverse conclusions⁴. But, where in all of this is the ambiguity?
1: Kyle Rittenhouse is pudgy-faced. This article post isn’t meant to say that his liberal accusers lie *all* the time.
2: They have a habit of throwing around the word “murder”. They often mistake “killings” for “murder”, and wouldn’t know that murders are unjustified killings because they don’t make moral distinctions. Poor ethicists and pseudo-theologians, these guys.
3: Did I mention that Grosskreutz handgun was illegal at the time? Rittenhouse’s accusers have a tendency to completely disregard this, even though (or even because) it opens Grosskreutz up to the same accusations of “being there to cause trouble”.
4: Others, though, would like to believe all twelve members of the jury suddenly had strokes, which made them incapable of recalling what they witnessed on camera. Causing them to render a “not guilty” verdict that the accusers insist shouldn’t have happened.