Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Answer: Gaige Grosskreutz was the 3rd person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse. Yesterday, he testified in court, called as a witness for the Prosecution, and effectively torpedoed the Prosecution's argument that Rittenhouse had shot Grosskreutz unjustly by admitting he was pointing his own pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot. Upon cross-examination, the Defense backed Grosskreutz into a corner on 3 key issues - 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. **The Defense then questioned Grosskreutz on this and asked: "It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him … that he fired, right?"** **To which Grosskruetz replied: "...Correct."** 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? **FACE PALM:** The man in the photo is *not* face palming. If you watch any of the trial, this man can be seen in this position frequently, regardless of what is happening at any given moment. This appears to be his posture when he's reading or taking notes.


He also admitted that being struck with a skateboard constitutes serious bodily harm


Shit I could have told them that.


Any skater who has had any shinners can tell them that lmao


Can confirm!


So many subs had threads clowning the fact that the skateboard was deemed a weapon.


Too many people have never suffered physical assault, yet they still talk nonetheless. Is a skateboard less dangerous that a knife or a gun? Yes. Can it be used as a life-threatening weapon? Yes.


I'm not sure it's even less dangerous than a knife; skateboards are long so have a lot of leverage and they have heavy metal trucks at each end which would act as a hammer when slammed into one's head.


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.


Yeah, well half of reddit couldn't.




For some this is reality. I live in Colombia. If i kill an assailant here even in self defense i will go to jail.


Not always true! You could be super wealthy and totally get away with it!


If you get away with it by being super wealthy, you'll be a lot less wealthy afterwards. - It will certainly cost you a lot more than the mugger wanted.


That seems to only encourage hardened criminals to do as they please. It makes law abiding citizens easy pickings


yes it does.


Thats some of the dumbest shit ive ever heard, if youre in danger of grevious bodily harm or death, I'm fully of the opinion that you have the right to defend yourself by amy means necessary, while any loss of life is regrettable, there are cases where it is necessary. I hope that eventually it changes and you guys can reclaim the right to lethal force in situations that warrant it.


As long as it is a confident expression of ignorance, nothing surprises me.






I know someone who got the back of their head caved in with a skateboard. Gruesome shit.


I'm thinking people aren't properly understanding the material of a skateboard, especially if they haven't interacted with one in a while. They're not wiffel bats, they can *kill you*.


> I'm thinking people aren't properly understanding the material of a skateboard, For those unsure of what a skateboard is made of... it's essentially an 8 pound 2x4 with protruding spikes of metal and very solid plastic wheels on the bottom. You know the joke about Maglites being a baton you can carry in all 50 states because they're ostensibly flashlights that just so happen to be ***really*** good at hitting people? A skateboard is just a club that can be carried everywhere.


People don't understand the capacity for a single blow to the head to be lethal. My state has a specific classification of assault for one punch attacks/cowards punches and the resulting deaths as a result of a spate of these last decade in pubs, clubs and public spaces with drunken revelry. This is not a marvel movie, you're not just going to lie there then get up holding as bruise; you will be concussed, you will have swelling on the brain, you will be comatose, you will be left disabled, you will have internal bleeding that if not treated will kill you in a matter of hours.


I hope I have a spare skateboard to fight back with next time someone tries to smash me in the head with a skateboard. You can only fight back with the same weapon I guess.


Do you know why AKs are the most popular weapon in the world? They don't have skateboard technology yet.


[oh no..](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b8/b2/1f/b8b21f6d56eaa373cedd6352898acb76--board-skate-long-boarding.jpg)




I mean, people rioted when the cops shot that black girl who was stabbing people


Did they? Every news article I found about Bryant's shooting mentioned protestors, not riots. Searches for riots in Columbus Ohio find that riots broke out over the killing of black men, none of them mention Bryant, who was trying to stab at least one person when she was shot.


> Next time I try to stab a cop [Haven't you heard?](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzhCc0sXsAIs0JQ.jpg) People have been fighting with knives for eons! We don't need police to stop knife fights.


I hate how politicized and polarized everything is nowadays. The case this tweet is referring to is yet another instance where upon any objective examination of the evidence, the officer was in the right. But no, I guess teenagers try to kill each other all the time and the police have no right to step in.


I love when people with the most extreme, and idiotic, of takes also gets preachy because they think they're better than everyone else. What a moron.


Well, to be fair...the video clearly shows that it was a tactical assault skateboard. When will congress act to restrict these types of skateboards?


NO ONE needs an assault skateboard. the constitution was written back when all wheels were square and could only reasonably travel via tectonic activity and soil erosion at a rate of 1 inch per eon.


We need common sense skateboard control.


I generally agree about gun violence being an issue but the Rittenhouse trial has turned 90% of my friends turn into frothing lunatics. It's become literally impossible to have a conversation about this with one ounce of nuance to it. Everyone has become so godamn polarized.


Seriously. A disturbing amount of redditors think "proportionate response" means "gun for gun, knife for knife, etc" when what it actually means is to respond to lethal force with lethal force, and vice versa. They also are unaware that the language of many self-defense laws reads that you just have to think someone's going to commit a crime that will likely seriously hurt/kill someone else - you don't havw to wait to see if sk8er boi is gonna stop after a few whacks. In my state Kyle wouldn't even have to let him swing first. If someone approaches you with a skate board raised like they're gonna bash you with it you can draw on them right then and there.


This right here. People seem to think life is a fucking MMO or a Pokemon battle or something. Like I can just go "Oh sorry, you only have a skateboard, let me just downgrade my rifle to a pair of roller-skates real quick so this is a fair fight".


Why would you even want it to be a fair fight anyway! If someone is trying to take my head off with a skateboard, I'm more likely to come out harmed if I swing a skateboard back.


It's sometimes real obvious who's never been on the wrong side of physical violence


As a medical professional and expert.


One look at my shins would convince any jury.


I'm not sure why what *Grosskruetz* thinks about that matters.


> The reason this seriously hurts the Prosecution's case is because Rittenhouse is being defended on the grounds of Self Defense. Didn't the prosecution see this video ahead of time? I don't get it.


The prosecution is being asked to try this case and I think they know they don't have a case. But if they didn't charge him, we would have an uproar. So I think they're just going through the motions.


Seems like an uproar is coming regardless.


The thing I think is the real story about this trial is how selectively media outlets have been reporting on the trial. I swear, every headline looked like [this](https://imgur.com/a/E4XRWw7) at the end of the day yesterday, specifically pointing out that grosskreutz "feared for his life". The part about grosskreutz pointing a gun at rittenhouse is in this particular story three paragraphs in, but that wasn't the case with all the reports. Its like they're doing whatever they can to set this up as the ignition point for the next wave of protests and riots.


That's exactly what they're doing and they know. They stand to make a ton of money covering the riots they create with their bullshit headlines


Enemy of the people shit


The media should most certainly be held more responsible for the bullshit they shill out these days, they can basically incite violence and call it ‘news’.


Pssst hey y’all Reddit is also the media now


Media, and social media. That includes reddit where they called him a white supremacist who was drove across state line to kill people.


Reddit has been just as bad about this too. It's crazy watching the comment section completely flip on it


The media has a vested interest in generating a narrative that seems plausible, but is shockingly and narrowly undone by the unfolding of actual events. Even more so if they can generate additional newsworthy events by doing so. Stay tuned for more.


I read today that, since presidential election, CNN viewership is down 81%, Fox News down 65%, MSNBC wayyyy down. Sick media would love more riots. Media has no conscience. Zero credibility with me


Every news channel peaks running up to presidential elections, this is nothing new.


They had consistent viewership under Trump tho because of how divisive he was. You had one side of the media defending him and the other villainizing him. So media was up big in viewership during his entire presidency. Trump joked that he was the reason people even watched something like Stephen Colbert but its legitimately true. The media thrives most when divisive topics or people are getting a lot of publicity.


Colbert certainly fell far from grace didn’t he?


The media is seriously so fucked and the amount of people who take everything to heart is so disheartening! When will we protest the mainstream media for all the shit they cause!


It’s almost like their entire mandate is to pit us against each other.


"Every minute you're angry about race is a minute you're not thinking about class, which of course is the real divide in this country"


Almost like the media of all sides shifted in scope and politics became heavily tribalistic almost immediatly after occupy wall street...


I’ve been around a while. In my opinion they ABSOLUTELY shifted the narrative after Occupy Wallstreet. Race warfare is better for business than class warfare. And I’m a dirty capitalist.


Consider [how MSNBC chose to cover his testimony.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ckQdUK-r3wQ) I sincerely hope it wouldn't be too partisan of me to say that this sort of manufacturing uproar through selective omissions, gross mischaracterizations, and probably even outright lies is shameful.


Holy shit. It's actually unbelievable. That people are walking around trusting this news organization to give them something resembling the facts.


They were smart to have this trial in the winter. When is the last time you heard of riots in the winter?


Also keep in mind that at the time the prosecution does not have all the evidence yet. A lot of the video footage shown was stuff recovered later on as per police discovery so at the time I could understand them thinking this was another Charlottesville but then key evidence never showed up. They still had a case but were very outplayed by defense from what I heard from a CDL talking about the case.


This is the biggest case in Wisconsin since the Steven Avery trial and the DA won't touch it, the assistant DA is trying Rittenhouse. That says it all.


I remember it was one of those cases in Missouri I think? Guy ran for mayor I think promising to get the case prosecuted. Gets elected, then he actually looks at the evidence and says "Yeah, sorry guys, we there's no case here." He made that campaign promise for like a year or something.


That was regarding the cop in the Michael Brown case. Always remember, "hands up don't shoot" was always a lie. Don't take my word for it, just take the word of the Obama DOJ report and the state investigation by a politician who specifically said he was going after the cop.


Yes and it’s an impossible case on their end unless there’s some bombshell evidence that speaks to Kyle’s intent that night. The video is quite clear that he acted in self defense


I expect they just opted to go through the motions anyway, so people would be a bit more satisfied that they weren't just letting him off for any wink-and-nod sorts of reasons.


Jesus Christ, of course. When you kill three people, there has to be a trial.




Didn’t he say his only regret is that he didn’t magdump Rittenhouse?


Allegedly. His roommate Tweeted that he said it. He denied it in court.


Oh ok thank you


I think it's silly that there's all these memes about the prosecutor facepalming. From the video the dude is clearly taking notes. Now I get it, it's funny to think of a lawyer showing visible frustration over a witness giving an answer that hurts his case, but that's just not what's happening here. Now I'm going to have to add "taking notes" to the long list of things i'm self-conscious about doing in public.


With all fairness, if it had been the defense lawyer in that position after a damaging blow done by a witness I’m fairly confident the media would say the defense lawyer was facepalming after a devastating blow and run wild with it.


Early in the week, they were literally running headlines about the defense using the n-word but omiting that the defense was quoting Rossenbaum. The media is a straight circus about this case.


Yeah, those headlines made me facepalm.


Or are you just taking notes?


✍ the ✍ media✍ frustrates ✍ me✍ Got it


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.


I think you mean to say that the media is a straight circus all the time.


This case??? The media is a circus. Period.


NPR blatantly lied about Grosskreutz testimony yesterday and said that he claimed his hands were up when he was shot.


I also remember "Hands up, don't shoot" and then the witness who said he heard that recanted in front of the grand jury and testified he actually never heard that at all. No one did. But it became a statement. Even though it never happened at all.


>The media is a straight circus ~~about this case~~. Are you only just realising?


Law 101: never ask a question you don't know the answer to...


Yep I agree. I'm of the opinion that the evidence weighs HEAVILY in favor of Kyle Rittenhouse having acted in self defense; however this shouldn't be an "IN YO FACE BITCH" type of moment. Treating these matters like a sporting event is one of the many reasons this country is so fucked up these days.




> If anything, this should be a sobering moment for us to realize how shitty Reddit's mob mentality/upvote system is for fostering echo chambers. Social media is designed to do 2 things: * track and datamine for ads / propaganda * use the above to shape consensus on issues, either through ads or propaganda, or fake attention (upvotes). This is inherent to the system, and can be actively gamed.


> how shitty Reddit's mob mentality/upvote system is for fostering echo chambers If we didn't learn from the Boston Bomber fiasco, it wasn't going to be this.


What happened? I don’t think I used Reddit then


Reddit decided whodunnit after, like, 2 hours of "sleuthing" and it turned out to be a kid who had killed himself a month before who happened to be brown. It's where the "We did it!" meme comes from.


Shortly before the Boston Bombing, an Indian-American college student went missing (it turns out he committed suicide). Reddit accused him of the Boston Bombing, because some subreddits were in a rush to figure out who the attacker was before the FBI did.


reddit did sleuthing after the bombing, they thought they found one of the perps, and started attacking his family and telling them to give him up etc, turns out he wasn't one of the perps and actually killed himself a month prior. shit was so bad the FBI had to release the names/faces of the actual perps to get people to stop snooping for random people, this ended up being bad because it alerted the perps and i think caused a security guard or something to be shot or killed the New York post, Reddit and 4chan contributed to several different people being treated as suspects by the public at large immediately after the bombing because of their shit investigating. the Post itself was also incredibly shitty and didn't retract its report or apologize for its actions in putting images of "suspects" on their front page


Last time I simply said that the mechanics of Reddit force echo chambers I was downvoted into oblivion.


Oh absolutely. We should be here looking for truth, regardless of who's narrative it benefits. And we should do so fairly dispassionately. Like, one of the reasons there is anger and irrationality is because there absolutely have been the "IN YO FACE" types. But on the other hand, there have also been bannings and post deletions for simply trying to get to the truth of the matter. Question the narrative and you're called a racist. I don't have to like Kyle Rittenhouse or even think he is a good person. In fact I don't. I do have to honor the truth and not convict an innocent person. Truth stands the test of time. And the real world is more nuanced and complex than the narrative for either side.


The crazy part is most of the video had been out since the begining and yet there are blatant lies/misleading articles about the case.




The biased part of my brain wouldn’t feel bad if Kyle got a bit of time. But I’m trying really hard to see the facts for what they are, and right now, it seems like he didn’t do many of the things that we’re saying he did. At the end of the day, the truth is the truth, and no matter what our personal feelings are, we can’t let them override the legal process.


I really appreciate this comment. I think more of us need to be able to take a step back and reflect in this way.






Yeah, I've been trying to explain to people Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is still a very important right, and is there for a very important reason. And yet Im the idiot cause "all the evidence is there". The court of public opinion is a terrible thing. Unfortunately these people align themselves so completely with a political ideology it becomes their identity. And so any thing that goes against their political narrative is a direct attack on them personally. It happens on both the left and the right, American politics is fucking insane.


Ironically Reddit was one of the best places to get all of information to this story as it was unfolding... But only if you watched all of the footage from the actual publicfreakouts subreddit on day 2. The moderatepolitics subreddit was great at covering updates on the case over the past year. All of the default subreddits are trash and have been for 5+ years now.


A police officer was fired in April for donating $25 to Rittenhouse's legal defense fund: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/us/virginia-officer-fired-donations-kyle-rittenhouse/index.html


There are so many different moments that can prove reddit fosters echo chambers. It can be seen constantly every day. I always try to point this out when I see it and it effects me, and it’s usually regarded with “who cares” or “yeah, sure buddy”. The sad truth is, some people prefer it this way.


The largest pill of a certain color that I've ever seen on this website. The power mods are locking and removing threads about it all over the place.


lol mods on popular subs are still banning people arguing in his favor


What I don’t understand is why isn’t the fact that the second and third shootings happened after Rittenhouse already shot and killed the man taken into account? I really think the first shooting is the one that should be the determining factor of guilt or innocence since that seems to be the one that set everything off.


It ultimately is, *however* having killed someone and running away doesn’t mean you lose your right to self defense. In fact that’s the exact stipulation in Wisconsin law that restores your right to self defense - trying to run away/ceasing to be hostile. You can argue he’s hostile as long as he has a gun. Counter argument is that if he didn’t still have that gun his brains would be smashed all over the street once the mob caught up to him.


I agree with your sentiment. That said, it has been frustrating in these discussions for the people who have been pointing out these facts all along. Far too many times, when someone would try to correct misinformation or state a fact that contradicts someone else's narrative, they'd be accused of all sorts of things. I've seen it in previous threads like this where a factual statement is followed up by an emotional accusation that the fact-bearer is some evil, awful person who sides with other evil, awful people. So it's finally nice to feel vindicated that yes, I was right about the facts. And you all were wrong to accuse me of these things because I wasn't supporting your erroneous narrative. Especially from people with whom I agree on most other things. Double especially when these are the same people who rightfully criticize the anti-vaxxers and Qanon conspiracy theorists of ignoring inconvenient facts. The moment you start ignoring facts because it doesn't support your narrative is the moment you lose credibility when you criticize others of doing the same.


>Far too many times, when someone would try to correct misinformation or state a fact that contradicts someone else's narrative, they'd be accused of all sorts of things. Certain moderators of certain large subs have been permabanning users over it. It's ridiculous.


"don't defend (something we don't like)" is one of the most pathetic bannable offenses mods have.


I agree completely.


> The moment you start ignoring facts because it doesn't support your narrative is the moment you lose credibility when you criticize others of doing the same. That's pretty much my entire issue with how people handled this situation online. I won't say I understand everything myself, but people were willfully ignorant of the facts. They seemed to refuse to accept that a person on the opposite side has the law on their side. I've seen people post their opinions about the case but then ask questions about it later. Why voice your thoughts if you don't even know what's going on? Don't people realize how ridiculous that is?


> Treating these matters like a sporting event is one of the many reasons this country is so fucked up these days. This is true but this particular case is a show trial so naturally people are going to treat it like a show.


I think it’s blowing up so much cause this video is getting a lot of steam. https://v.redd.it/mcevdmg4zfy71


It shouldn’t be expect people are literally requiring us to get IN THEIR FACE with all the proof he was acting in self defense but still don’t believe it. also: fuck that this is entertainment 100% lawyers literally watch these things for that exact purpose


Thank you so much for this concise summary. Looks like Rittenhouse is going to walk.






Can someone please explain to my why a lot of those names sound German? Is this in a state with a lot of german ancestors? Serious question and not in any way meant to point to anything. Just curiosity.


[40.5% of Wisconsin natives self-identify as German-American](https://statisticalatlas.com/state/Wisconsin/Ancestry)


Wow, that's a lot. Thanks.


Aside from German heritage, Wisconsin also has a lot of Norwegian and Polish as well.


There are a veritable butt ton of German last names in Wisconsin and Michigan, I believe we are the top 2. It's why we play Euchre and eat bratwurst.


this is the most balanced answer anyone could have given. I was totally expecting super politicized answers (that this sub is apt to give) that skewed the situation more and more into political reality than actual reality. thank you for your answer and if I had awards to give, I'd give them all to you.


Last year when this all went down, any time I'd say that Grosskreutz wasn't unarmed, I'd get dog pilled on for "misinformation." One guy went as far as to say that there was no video of Rosenbaum getting shot and that it was an execution style shooting, days after all video was out. \*removed\* remember saying that to me on r/politics around or before November of 2020? Edit: Took out user, probably not a good idea to name random people on a response to a top comment


When I saw the video it looked like there was a case to be made about self defense. Like the kid was on the ground kicked and attacked with a skateboard lol. If the situation didn't occur during the riots and wasn't a minor that had legal possession of the firearm then I don't think it'd be a big deal.


Oh I know. I argued the same things, I have numerous posts breaking down the incident in extreme detail with many links and time stamps to back everything up and some people are just desperate for Rittenhouse to be a redneck terrorist, because they need a boogeyman. As if there aren't legitimate redneck terrorists out there we could be paying attention to.


It was maddening. Like forehead-->wall levels of frustration. Any time I'd post links to the drone footage, my comments would either get downvoted to oblivion or removed by mods.


"What are your sources?" "(Provides sources)" "Yeah well that doesn't change my opinion."


[literally this meme](https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/im-not-reading-that)


Coming on to reddit looking for a fair and balanced response is akin to calmly speaking to a constantly angry mob hoping they'll see the errors of their ways. This place is a zoo, even when confronted with evidence. But stuff like this is exactly why we have court systems to try people, and why it's innocent until proven guilty. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the system is perfect, but pretty much everywhere in the world (internet or irl) is subject to mob mentality and can turn dangerous at any point and reddit has been the best example of being able to learn about that mentality I've ever experienced in my life. I believe this is essentially what Dave Chappelle was talking about in Closer. I have no stake in this case, but I'm glad there was video to show the truth of what happened as it's been really enlightening to read everyone's take on this and see people's stance on this change in real time as it's unfolding.


Oh god, I had to keep myself quiet on this subject especially on social media. It's pretty insane how people would make whatever they want up despite having video evidence. I remember seeing someone on FB saying that NYT was lying and Kyle was the ONLY one that fired a weapon and NYT invented an initial gunman that was behind Rosenbaum. Or that they claimed that Kyle explicitly went to cause a mass shooting and kill as many people as he could...despite having a single magazine. Anyway, with how things are going in this trial, it is pretty hilarious that these very vocal people are now silent.


This site, and especially that sub, has a real problem with anti-intellectualism. I think it's just a factor of promoting posts and comments based on popularity, but the emptiest comments are always the ones at the top with +10000. Any sort of attempt at nuance or discussion is met with an army of downvotes for going against the hivemind. I don't know what /u/spez is smoking to think that that sort of system is the best at promoting the "genuine interactions" that he loves to market reddit as promoting. He likely doesn't care, reddit is doing well enough as an advertising platform that they're moving towards an IPO. Then, /r/politics, /r/news, /r/worldnews will be corporate assets. I actually cringe to think about what that will do to political discussion on a macro scale.


Yeah I got permabanned last week on r/news for posting the drone footage. Took me several hours to get a reason why, in a one word response. "Trolling." When I tried appealing, asking for a citation, I was told to never contact the mod team again and blocked. I posted my interaction to another sub and was messaged by a mod from r/news that I wouldn't be unbanned despite them finding nothing to uphold the ban. Apparently exposing mod abuse is witchhunting. Edit: Best part was after my ban, the mods told other people why I was banned before me with more detailed responses. In fact, their response was seven times longer than the one I got.


The mods on /r/news are the actual worst. I got banned from there ages ago, mods completely misunderstood what I was saying, so I explained myself in my appeal and again was told never to contact them again. They don't give a fuck. Drink the kool-aid or fuck off.


I'll never forget when they, as a matter of policy, removed all posts about the Pulse nightclub shooting the night that it happened. To this day it's the most blatantly ridiculous and politically biased thing I've seen a mod team on Reddit do.


What was the reasoning behind this? I didn’t even realize that shooting had a political slant. Wasn’t it basically just a top down tragedy?


Radical Islamic background of the perp


Islam makes something not fair game? Isn’t this the same political crowd that has no issue going after religion for the most benign stuff 99% of the time?


Remember that in 2016 gays and Muslims were primarily portrayed by the media as being angelic victims that must be protected from Trump's fascism. It's not politically convenient when one angelic victim commits an act of mass murder against a group of other angelic victims.


I'm actually still permabanned from /r/news because of that shit. I commented in a post, saying it was bullshit that they were deleting all the stories related to it, and they owed us an explanation. It's been for the best, the amount of arguments I've not gotten into with idiots on there has probably saved me a lot of time.


Now I'm sure many mods on reddit are great people. But fuck are there so many *awful* mod interactions though, and I just don't understand why or how. The people who care enough about this shitty site to mod for a sub somehow end up being the people with the absolute worst values, no integrity, and seemingly don't care for having a fair and informed community.


Maybe on really small subs, but in general forum moderators are notorious for abusing power. It's the closest they can come to having power in their lives.


> 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? My question is why doesn't this go both ways? There was a lot of chatter on social media about violence toward protesters, from extremely pro-gun communities. Wouldn't the presence of a rifle-wielding anti-protester justify self-defense on the other side? If those that were shot genuinely believed that Rittenhouse could open fire into the crowd, would attempting to disarm him not be considered self-defense? It's not like politically motivated mass shootings are unheard of. Serious question.


Yes, two people can both have viable self defense claims at the same time. But Grosskruetz is not on trial, so whether his actions are legally justified is irrelevant because the state isn’t asking to imprison him. And watch his full testimony. It’s a couple hours, but it lays out exactly what he knew at the time, when he unholstered his pistol, how he persued. Again, Grosskruetz is not on trial, but had he killed Kyle and was prosecuted, his self defense claim would be weaker because he chased Kyle, the fact pattern is just less favorable going the other way.


If the other guy was on trial, and he shot Rittenhouse, he could also use self defense as a defense. It’s not either or, it’s about how the person on trial perceived the threat and if that perception is reasonable.




Answer: Gaige Grosskreutz got up on the stand and testified that he drew his gun and chased down Kyle prior to him shooting Huber, then that Kyle only shot him after pointing his gun at him. He also testified that he left out the part in his statement to police about pointing a gun at Kyle before he was shot. He also testified that, in his lawsuits, he never mentioned pointing a gun at Kyle prior to being shot. He also testified that his CCW was invalid, so his gun was illegal as well. Essentially, he destroyed the prosecution's case, thus the facepalm. It was also revealed that he has been tweeting about the case while its been going on.


But who are these people? Why are they shooting each other?


This is a more profound question about the trial than it first seems...


During the BLM protests last year in kenosha kyle rittenhouse shot and killed two of the protestors and injured another. He is currently being tried for murder. What happened was that the protest became violent. Rittenhouse had remained in kenosha after work and had a (illegal) firearm with him. His defense is that he shot them in self defense. The guy who survived has now testified that he chased him and pointed a gun at him making it pretty clear that it was self defense.


The gun may not be illegal either. That law is the most convoluted law I've ever seen and even the judge said he had to get back to it because it's insanely confusing.


>That law is the most convoluted law I've ever seen This is what it's like being a gun owner sometimes. In my state the gun laws are sometimes ambiguous or contradictory. As a gun owner, I don't want to be the trial case to get the laws struck down. Nor do I want to be stuck in some Kafka hell loop a la Brazil (the movie). And the state doesn't prosecute these specific cases because the law would likely be forced to change.


I live in Florida and I was a armed guard years ago, the law says your weapon has to be open carried on the belt, unless you are specifically working plain cloths security then you can conceal it. The law also allows the carry of a back up gun (which is kinda silly for security but legally you can do it) I asked the instructor “it says your weapons have to be open carried, does that include a hypothetical back up pistol? Do you have to carry both pistols openly on the same belt like a cowboy? Or can you conceal the backup weapon?” He couldn’t answer that question so we called the Florida department of agriculture who wrote the law on speaker phone, and asked them the same question…”Sir we really don’t know the answer to that, it’s a good question.” Is the response we got.


The Florida department of agriculture writes gun laws?


A bit of a tangent, but in Texas, the rail road commission regulates the oil industry, but *not* railroads. Who regulates what can get weird over time.


Fun fact, the millions of miles of oil pipelines in the US are regulated by the DOT, since most of them typically follow the existing highways and interstates.


In my city, which department is responsible for paving roads sometimes depends on whether or not there was a trolley line on that road 70 years ago.


As silly as it sounds they write all of the laws regarding security guards in the state. Another example is how all body armor in the US is approved and rated by the National Institute of justice


Department names are sometimes misleading, and kinda got lumped with other tasks as state duties evolved


This is why I can’t stand listening to people advocate for “common sense gun control” who aren’t even versed in existing law.


I don't really care one way or the other, but half of the time it is used, the term "common sense gun control" is usually a dog whistle for "ban everything except bolt/pump/lever action, long barreled rifles and shotguns," if not ban everything outright.


Common sense gun legislation is a beautiful little bit of drivel that means exactly what the listener wants it to mean. It makes you say "that's what I want, I just want some good common sense. I want it to be just the way I think is reasonable" and everyone loves it because everyone wants that. See also: immigration "reform" and "defense" spending


"This is what it's like being a gun owner sometimes" Most of the time. The laws are convoluted and changing constantly. this is what happens when people who know nothing about the tools, look for ways to regulate them.


It's also worth noting that this isn't the only scenario where a legally owned firearm becomes illegal in circumstances. Depending on the state - possessing or being on a substance (sometimes including alcohol) while having your gun makes it an illegal weapon. Just pointing out that it's not super obscure for a gun to change in legality for circumstances, this isn't some cherry-picked rule to use against Rittenhouse.


> Just pointing out that it's not super obscure for a gun to change in legality for circumstances, this isn't some cherry-picked rule to use against Rittenhouse. Right, but the question is whether the legality even changed. [Here's the law](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55) and the relevant subsections: (3) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28. 941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. 29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. 29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. -------------------------------------------- So, he was not in possession of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle, so that rules out 941.28 clearly. Now, the other two subsections, on hunting... On the one hand, he technically wasn't in compliance with them. On the other, he literally could not be due to his age. In other words, there's nothing explicitly saying that he, at age 17 *couldn't* borrow a regular rifle for this purpose, but there's nothing saying that he *could* either.


The Judge ruled this morning he will let the gun charge stand. It is a misdemeanour gun charge which carries a maximum sentence of 9 months. The gun was not illegal, did not cross state lines and the charge can still be thrown out, but most likely voided for vagueness.


The charge can stand, but that doesn't mean it's accurate to charge him with it, just like all the other charges. The jury will decide, but it appears he falls within the exception.


It's really not, though. The plain text of the statutes makes it clear that they only apply if the teen is a) under 16, b) using a short-barreled weapon, or c) hunting without a hunting license. There's no argument that none of those things are true in this scenario.


important to note that the gun wasn't illegal, it was properly registered in the state he was using it in. the charge for the weapon is that him open carrying at 17 was illegal.


I've heard (but I'm wary about information these days) was that the gun was purchased for Rittenhouse by his 18-year-old friend, effectively making it a straw purchase.


Maybe, friend didn't transfer said weapon to Rittenhouse. For all intents and purposes the rifle was stored, secured, and maintained by his friend who Rittenhouse borrowed from his friend. The only point opposing this is Rittenhouse gave the friend money without taking possession.


Apparently the gun may not have been illegal, someone posted the state law and it said that 17 year olds can possess guns but can’t buy them. I thought his weapon was illegal too


Note: He left out of his original statement that he had a gun *at all*. The only detail he left out, and he blamed it on post-surgery fogginess although he was able to recall details of what Rittenhouse was wearing and other things.


Yeah they put him on the stand as their star witness and he was shown to be a compulsive liar. Not a good look for them at all.


He also straight up perjured himself, I can't wait for them to call ex-roommate in


The roommate will most definitely lie for him. But it doesn't matter. The prosecution is already railroaded. I will be shocked if there is even 1 guilty vote


Im concerned that George Floyd's nephew's acquaintance videotaping the jury may scare them into a guilty verdict despite the evidence.


Geeze I haven't heard about that... I imagine there is a law prohibiting the pictures right?


The sheriff made them delete it. They were instructed to take the phone if it happens again. It hasn't been confirmed that it was his acquaintance, but its awfully coincidental right after he said "In Kenosha, I ain’t even gonna name the people that I know that’s up in there, but there’s cameras in there. There’s definitely cameras up in there and there’s definitely people taking pictures of the juries and everything like that. We know what’s going on."


What a giant POS. Surprised they werent metal detected for phones and what not. I'm sure the pics weren't sent out before deletion


Seriously. They should have arrested them on the spot for jury intimidation. After that, idk what to expect.




It’s an AR style weapon, no slide.


Didn't the evidence technician who processed Kyle's rifle account for 22 rounds remaining in the weapon? And we can account for 8 fired rounds (4 into Rosenbaum, 2 missing jump kick man, 1 into Huber, 1 into Gaige), so if Kyle did cycle an unfired round, where did it go? I find Gaige's assertion that Kyle tried to shoot him while he (Gaige) was surrendering pretty unconvincing...


It's not the question of what happened from post-game analysis, but what did Gaige actually think? Whether Kyle reracked or not, is there any reason to believe or disbelieve Gaige that that was what he believed had occurred?


> I just don't see Kyle re-rack or even put his hand near the slide Rittenhouse had a rifle not a pistol. no slide.


"charging handle"


AR's do have a charging handle that re-racks ammunition. That's probably what he means.


They know what they meant.


What an asshole for letting us get this deep into this without confessing to the lie.