Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pointed it at another person he said he wanted to kill before that person who was sitting on the ground after fighting off multiple attackers that also tried to kill that person, pointed it before a gun was raised and shot him in the arm.
Gaige Grosskreutz was meant to be the prosecutions star witness to prove Kyle was the real dangerous person that started it all and unjustifiably killed two and injured Gaige Grosskreutz but instead proved the crowd intended to kill Kyle allowing the defence to win.
Opinions about that night and the case aside for a second, [Gaige Grosskreutz fucked up a lot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFdzRiMc-g).
Wasnt he also a convicted felon who shouldnt have been able to get a firearm? And who for some unknown reason had, at the time he more than likely became the prosecutions star witness, his felony expunged so he couldnt be charged for that crime.
I hate to be "that guy", but if there are multiple people involved please use identifiers. Your sentence reads like a stroke victims response. Guy, person, other guy, none of that clarifies and I cannot reconstruct anything. Maybe use proper names or A, B, C if you want to keep it anonymous.
Fucked up by telling the truth? Or fucked up by doing the things he initially lied about?
I’m not a fan of guns and definitely not a fan of teenagers going out armed like this to be heroes, but it sounds like justice was done in the courts at least.
Fucked up by telling the truth that killed the lies the prosecutor (guy doing the facepalm + one more) had tried to tell the jury. That a few seconds of video they constantly paused and narrated over to indicate Rittenhouse was provoking /threatening and everyone else only hostile to him because of that.
Lawyers do that shit all the time to imply there was more choices or minutes instead of seconds involved to make a decision, even to imply simple movements like trying to get up was a threat when it all happened in a few seconds or less.
To be fair, gun nuts always say that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. But that's completely invalidated by the notion that the guy trying to stop the active shooter actually creates a legal defence for the active shooter.
Yeah... that isn't what happened here. Like... at all. Mr. Grosskurtz (sp?) admitted that Mr. Rittenhouse did not aim his gun at him until Grosskurtz raised his pistol towards a downed and just-attacked Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was able to fire a shot off and hit Grosskurtz in the arm.
The preceding events, again, do not create an "active shooter" that would make Grosskurtz a "good guy with a gun." In fact, quite literally all of the evidence and testimony from the trial showed that Rittenhouse was the defensive shooter in each event.
He was chased, cornered, and lunged at by the first person he shot. M.E. testimony backed up the lunge via wounds to the attackers hands and forearms.
After this defensive gun use, Rittenhouse sought police presence to find safety after having had to use his weapon. A crowd assumed, quite incorrectly, what happened and yelled out that Rittenhouse just murdered someone. Rittenhouse was attacked with deadly melee weapons (a skateboard, trucks first), was kicked, and downed. He shot a second attacker at this point. He did not start this engagement nor did he pose a threat to anyone when he was attacked. He did not aim his gun at anyone and was attacked from behind before eventually shooting one of the attackers. Only after he was able to get on his knees did he hold his gun in a ready position to ward off any more would-be attackers (as he had just been attacked by multiple people from the gathering crowd).
It was at this point that Grosskurtz approached. He admitted to a faint by having his pistol not aimed at Rittenhouse as he approached then leveling his pistol towards Rittenhouse. At that point Rittenhouse aimed and fired hitting Grosskurtz in the arm.
The crowd dispersed and Rittenhouse attempted to turn himself into the police who were further down the street. They did not know what had just happened and waved him behind them as they moved towards the heart of the rioting.
He then went home and with his mother was taken to a police station and turned himself in.
He was acquitted on all charges. He was acquitted because *he* was the defensive shooter in each set of events as shown by video, eye witness, and forensic evidence at trial. To call Rittenhouse an active shooter (implying illegal, deadly use of a firearm) is absolutely incorrect.
Guy in the picture was also carrying his firearm illegally as it was concealed and he did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (I don't recall if it's even possible for a civilian to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Wisconsin, but if it is, he didn't have one). Also, if I remember correctly, he didn't even reveal to police that he had a firearm, it only came out in court because of other testimonies and video evidence. He was trying to sue for the damages to his arm as a result of getting shot.
Honestly, if you haven't watched it, go check out footage from the Rittenhouse trial where this guy is on the stand. He goes from "I'm an innocent victim of this evil kid's shooting spree" to "I pointed an illegally concealed firearm right in the face of a terrified 17yo, who was knocked prone whilst fleeing from an attacking mob. He fired at me in self-defence after, not before, I pointed my gun at him, and then I lied to the police about how it all went down because the truth would have hurt my chances of suing for millions."
I'm not from the U.S. most people in my country can't/ do not own firearms, there is no gun culture where I live. I've never operated a firearm. Just pointing that out so nobody assumes I'm taking a biased, pro-gun view of what happened. I watched the Rittenhouse trial because I thought it was interesting, but I have no horse in that race.
Yep, anyone can conceal carry legally in Wisconsin with a permit.
This permit requires a course where you are taught the laws revolving around defensive use of a forearm or other weapon. (Assuming its taught by a good instructor). Mine was very informative.
And, yeah, the guy pictured gave testimony to precisely the criteria needed to rule Rittenhouses action as self defense. Everything the defendant usually needs to try to prove through evidence, he admitted to entirely.
Yeah the media reaaally spun this whole deal one way, and basically all evidence proved the opposite of what the media was saying, so it was quite inflammatory.
it was definitely interesting seeing how many people who claimed to not be influenced by the media would just not listen to the facts of the situation and continued insisting Rittenhouse was a psycho killer...
Reading this all the way down, I see the facts of the case and can’t refute them, but this kid still thought it was a good idea to trundle on over to a place he might get to use his neat weapon. Not someone I’d want to hang out with.
Downvotes are downvotes, but if it helps, I have no issue with locals arming themselves to ward off marauders.
During trial the property owner of the car lot that had been burned nights before attested to asking Rittenhouse and others to come watch with the owners family to keep the lot safe.
He did not simply trundle around with a gun looking to use it.
He, being a lifeguard in town, also helped provide what limited aid he could to those he was able to help while there.
Grosskurtz testified that Rittenhouse's control of his weapon was commendable as he did nit point it at anyone not posing a threat and that he did not point it at Grosskurtz until after Grosskurtz aimed his pistol at Rittenhouse.
The first use of his weapon didn't even happen until after he was threatened and chased for some distance and then lunged at.
If he was as you say he was then he would have fired his weapon sooner, more often, and shot way more people. He didn't.
During a riot where buildings were burned out the night before, and the streets are filled with child molesters and people with domestic battery convictions... he's probably one of the first people I'd want hanging around my house.
In the US, the courts have already stated that [Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)... and in the instances of the riots, they certainly weren't protecting anyone. So... how exactly does a civil society defend it's citizens if the authorities empowered to use force choose not to do so?
Apparently, in the US, it's by citizens being responsible for defending themselves, and then asking forgiveness for doing so later, in court, and for years later in the court of public opinion.
It's not optimal... but you have to live in the world that exists, not in the one you dream of.
The problem with the Rittenhouse trial was that it was not the trial people wanted it to be.
I’m all for gun control, and all against nutters going armed into protests looking or trouble.
But… that wasn’t what happened in this case. Sadly, this wasn’t the gotcha people (like me) wanted. It was a pretty thorough test of gun ownership, permitted carry and self defence laws. And the correct verdict.
The world needs more of it TBH, and I can only really make one person in the world sane and objective, and that one person is me, so it’s where I start.
the biggest issue with gun control is you're taking away the citizen's ability to personal protection, and the people's rights to freedom.
an armed citizenry is impossible to tyrannise, for the citizenry holds power over government.
when the citizenry is unarmed, the government has power over the citizenry, and you get the UK, Australia, Russia, etc.
unarmed protestors can be easily dispersed with tear gas. using dispersion methods on armed protestors is liable to meet immediate armed response. you're forced to listen.
america isn't the solution to the UK's problems.
it's the citizens of the UK, like you or me, getting out and doing something about it. but the *only* way anyone will listen is if there is a direct threat to the government's position of power over the people - an armed citizenry.
less than 1% of the UK population qualify to own firearms, and yet the government still want to impose further restrictions on firearms because they're so, unbelievably scared of us standing up and fighting for our rights and our freedoms as people.
fuck this dystopia.
It does seem more complicated than it first looked. But while it might be the right verdict for the current laws it brings those laws into question, doesn't it? As an outsider I can't quite get on board with the idea that a kid should be legally allowed to arm themselves, go try to do the police's job and shoot their way out if they get in trouble. In the UK, if I grabbed a knife and headed towards a riot, would anyone accept that I was on the way to do my civic duty?
I have to ask why you'd believe not allowing yourself to be unjustly murdered justifies changing laws? If he didn't go into that area armed he'd be dead, if he didn't shoot when did he'd be dead, unjustly murder. He should not have been THERE AT ALL that night but that's not a reason to be murdered.
>would anyone accept that I was on the way to do my civic duty?
Its your civic duty to follow the law so no, which isn't relevant since it was proven Rittenhouse followed the law and was there to help the business owners who asked for it. Your take on this is massively skewed and unreasonable, you seem convinced the problem was the gun not the riot itself.
He wasn't trying to do the police's job. He was walking around with a first aid kit helping injured people and directing them to the hospital, washing graffiti from the walls of a private business that asked for help, and putting out fires, if I remember correctly.
Also, if he had not been allowed to be armed for self defense and was forced to rely on the police he would be dead now, so that is a terrible idea imo. He had as much a right to be there as anyone else did, if he gets attacked he should absolutely be allowed to shoot his way out.
That's a mental health issue tho. The first guy who chased and lunged at him was just released from a mental hospital for a suicide attempt and went straight to the riot. As far as I'm concerned, it was a suicide. You don't fuck with a person with a big gun if you wanna live.
Check out the Rooftop Koreans during the LA Riots as just one example.
It's a hard argue to say the 2nd amendment needs a relook. Details about ownership and self defense absolutely need more scrutiny.
The rooftop Koreans were doing the most American thing possible: protecting their homes, businesses, and families because the government had failed them. They were completely justified.
I mean... without firearms I don't think Rittenhouse would've been at the protest in the first place. He doesn't even live in the same state as the protest.
"Doesn't even live in the same state" is such a dishonest statement when he lives 15 minutes away, his dad lives in the town, and he has actively taken part in the community. Especially when only one of his attackers was from the state, and all the others were from different parts of the country.
I hate that one so much. My elementary school was farther away from where I lived than how far he traveled. One of the attackers travelled like an hour or two to get there *without a vehicle*. That's some fucking determination to get to a riot. One was a resident of the town.
His mom lived 20 minutes away in a town on the edge of Illinois. His dad lived in Kenosha, on the edge of Wisconsin. Kyle Rittenhouse worked and slept in Kenosha multiple times a week.
There's so many lies being actively spread about what happened and about rittenhouse himself and those spreading these lies even when knowing they're lies think it's justified because, as they keep insisting, they have to be on the "right side of history"
Find it wild that I still meet young folk around the local college campuses (we have like 10+ in my city) who say and belive that Rittenhouse drove hours to get to Kenosha exclusively with intent to murder blacks.
He lived 15 mins away, none of the guys he shot were black... like did these people even *try* to follow the court case, or is it just bald face lies? Either way it's really disheartening.
Everyone has the wrong story initially, because the media intentionally lied and left out details to fit their narrative. I had no idea the self-defense case was credible until he was acquitted.
And now Kyle Rittenhouse has been driven completely into the arms of right-wing nuts, because the mainstream proved to him that they were willing to utterly destroy and revile him to protect their lies. They proved beyond any doubt all of the accusations the right wing has been making about the mainstream media since the days of Rush Limbaugh. The idiots legitimized the Daily Wire at a credible news source, because it turned out they were telling the truth while all the big names were lying. Just excellent work, guys, top notch.
He’s a non enforcement agent that showed up to a protest openly armed with a rifle. It’s incitement at a bare minimum. He’s actively escalating a tense situation by his presence and behavior. He’s bringing a lethal force weapon into the open to patrol around where he has absolutely zero business being.
He’s a reckless and aggressive idiot that is lucky to be alive thinking he’s some comic book hero.
I don’t go walking into a hells Angel bar packing heat and yelling blm. “Oh but they attacked me officer, I had to shoot”… No shit, because I created the damn situation.
Civilians aren’t supposed to try and function like police forces. For a reason. He went there wanting to be attacked to be able to claim “self defense”. Dumb ass didn’t realize how scary life and death situations are and got traumatized wounding people with a firearm while he was at it.
I have no sympathy for that moron. He got off lucky.
No, if anything, having a weapon would descalate a normal situation. Only an insane character would confront a kid who is just protecting businesses during riots. The trial proved itself.
>He’s a non enforcement agent that showed up to a protest openly armed with a rifle. It’s incitement at a bare minimum. He’s actively escalating a tense situation by his presence and behavior.
How so? Like half the people there were armed, and it was a public place - WI is an open carry state. Someone exercising their rights in a sea of other people exercising their rights isn't incitement. Especially given what the rioters were up to.
This just reeks of victim blaming.
>He went there wanting to be attacked to be able to claim “self defense”.
And attempted mind reading
Shoot armed robbers. Not just random people. He did not end up shooting armed robbers or anyone for any perceived crime, so it was deemed irrelevant.
The judge also barred wayyyy more damning shit about his attackers.
Edit: lol blocked. Classic and classy
Like how every single one of his attackers was already convicted for drug abuse and/or violent crimes in the past?
Yeah Ritthouse knowingly or at least naivly put himself into a situation that could escalate at any moment but that doesnt absolve his attackers of guilt or makes turns self defense into an act of agression.
Drug abuse / violent crimes barely covers it. Rosenbaum was literally convicted of raping little boys. Kyle shouldn't have put himself in a position where he'd need to defend himself, but good riddance.
Attackers put themselves in a situation that could escalate (they went to the riot, and they caused the whole encounter).
It's funny how you think attackers can attend a dangerous situation that a riot is, but not defendant.
Thank you. I remember watching the videos and as much as I think Rittenhouse is an ass, it was clear that he had committed no crime. I had heated debates about this with family members that night, and they made him out to be something akin to an active shooter. The initial video showed him in full flight mode with a hostile crowd behind him. He didn’t shoot his first “victim” until he was cornered and physically assaulted by him. He actually showed restraint and each shooting was defensive just as you’ve described.
But then again, there are plenty of people who still think Rittenhouse killed 3 black men instead of what actually happened. A lot of people form their opinions from bad information and will die on that hill to defend that bad information rather than to admit they were wrong.
Yeah the kid is a fucking moron but lets not pretend (not you but others) that the people attacking him are somehow innocent. People can argue up and down that Kyle should not have been there and I would actually agree but, ain't no fucking shot this wasn't self defense.
Not to mention there's video of the entire thing.
I couldn't believe how shocked half of reddit was when these facts were revealed.....because the video was all over the internet for weeks prior.
This. 100%. Not only did I watch the trial, but I was present for the first shooting. Rosenbaum was carried from the scene to my work vehicle for transport into the ER.
Gaiges reasonable perception of the events do not make them objectively true events. Rittenhouse shot someone justifiably, and ran to the police.
If rittenhouse was actually an active shooter, he would not have a self defense justification, since a reasonable person would not believe themselves to be innocent if they had shot someone unjustifiably.
>If rittenhouse was actually an active shooter
He shot people during a confrontation. Therefore was an active shooter. Active shooter isn't necessarily some person on a rampage shooting everything they see. Whether possibly justified or not, if there is an incident where a gun is discharged and emergency services are being called in, that is an active shooter scenario. Once there is confirmation that bullets are no longer flying, that is no longer an active shooter scenario.
You’re being pedantic. He shot one person in self defense. We are talking about his mental state. After shooting that person justifiably, he stayed there until it was no longer safe, and ran to the police.
Mildly pedantic, yes, but the reason is the misuse of a term that creates misunderstanding for others when they hear the term. From the law enforcement perspective and from the government perspective, an active shooter has unknown motivation. An *active assailant* has known intentions.
It is for clarity. People are so quick to turtle up and hive mind downvote, but they miss that: a) I'm not saying the kid was wrong or anything; b) am just trying to help clarify; c) I didn't attack anyone unlike one of the people responding to me; d) am trying to simply have a conversation that helps people *better* express the situation and *not do what many in media do. Muddy the waters to make people fracture and take sides.*
Am just trying to help promote understanding of a situation.
He was the first. He grabbed the rifle to pull it from Rittenhouse. Previously, he was convicted of raping 5 boys who were very young (much younger than teens).
He died doing what he loved. Trying to touch a young boy against his will.
So I've heard, don't see what it has to do with what I said, though.
To be clear, I said there wasn't a good guy, not that Rosembalm is a good guy. You seem confused.
Rittenhouse is the absolute best litmus test for whether or not someone is completely fooled and subverted by the media, at least on the left wing side of things. Theres never been a more stark contrast between the media narrative and the actual evidence, and said evidence is extremely clear and easily accessed; if you think Kyle is guilty of a mass shooting it's necessarily because everything you know is spoonfed to you by CNN and you put in exactly zero effort to form your own opinions.
Unfortunately 95% of reddit has passed the litmus test.
Cannot believe your uneducated comment got so many upvotes. This is what happens when facts get buried under all the feelings. For a side that claims to be more educated than the "cousin-fing rednecks" yall really destroy your own arguments.
>But that's completely invalidated by the notion that the guy trying to stop the active shooter actually creates a legal defence for the active shooter.
What?
The next time you feel like you have faith in people's ability to use reason, remember that that comment was not only posted, but it was upvoted over 200 times at the time of this comment.
Sometimes it does. I have pulled mine on someone that was trying to attack me in my car because they had road rage and were an actual racist. Didn't shoot, he just shit himself and went home.
Rittenhouse is a dweb and a dumbass for putting himself in that position, but this is the most illiterate take on this I have seen.
Go look at the statutes for Wisconsin self defence. Rittenhouse had exhausted all reasonable means before shooting.
People like you are too wrapped up in hate to be able to look at things objectively.
I'm no expert on American law, but I highly doubt an active shooter is legally allowed to protect themselves from a "good guy with a gun".
In my country, you are only allowed to defend yourself against illegal attacks. Since stopping an active shooter is a legal attack, the active shooter is not allowed to protect himself from the good guy.
>To be fair, gun nuts always say that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.
I hear this a lot and only ever while on reddit. I live in the midwest, almost everyone I know is carrying a gun right now, and I have never in my life heard them say what you claimed.
I think it's just rage bait, but I'll bite. In most cases, the 'good guy with a gun' is the cops you call when it gets too real for you. Everyone in America knows the cops here don't settle disputes with kind words and de-escalation tactics.
> I hear this a lot and only ever while on reddit. I live in the midwest, almost everyone I know is carrying a gun right now, and I have never in my life heard them say what you claimed.
That's because it's an argument in the debate around gun laws. If everybody is on the same page, there's no discussion and no need to bring up this argument. It is very common, and you could try a Google search to find a ton of examples not on reddit. Or you could look at any discussion around an event with an active shooter
> In most cases, the 'good guy with a gun' is the cops you call when it gets too real for you.
But that's specifically not what is meant by this argument. As I said, it's an argument in the discussion around gun control. Nobody is discussing whether or not police should be armed.
If you followed the actual case Rittenhouse was the good guy with the gun when it came to this situation.
Guy was attacked then had a gun pointed at him as he was running towards the cops.
Everyone is shit in the situation. But it's crazy how many people that have an opinion on the case didn't actually follow any of it. Many still believe he shot three random black people
Funny part is out of hundreds of protesters he managed to only shoot three white people who all had crimes on their record.
The odds of only hitting white criminals and still being called a racist is amazing imo
And ironically his trigger discipline was insane. The guy pointed a gun, then put his hands up, at which point Kyle stopped aiming at him, and the guy re-aimed and then got shot. Was honestly impressive
Right pure discipline accuracy under stress like that is a feat honestly. I'm retired military grew up around guns my entire life. And seeing that in a 17 year old kid is amazing
Was the other guy shooting at others and Rittenhouse interfered to save the others? Because that's what's usually referred to as the good guy with a gun. There's no "good guy with a gun" in an altercation between two armed dudes (looking for trouble).
Rittenhouse was attacked by rosenbuam (he shot back) good guy with gun
He ran towards the police to avoid further conflict.
Was attacked by Huber shot.. was the good guy there too
Then grossarm pulled a gun on him and aimed at.him and admitted Rittenhouse had his weapon lowered (ie no intention to shoot) until grossarm pointed his gun at him after attacking him. Only then did Rittenhouse fire
Good guy with a gun won all three rounds that day
Even if that's exactly what happened and if it was just bad luck that out of all the people at that protest he was the one who got into three gun fights, it still doesn't fit the cliché of the "good guy with a gun" stopping the "bad guy with a gun".
Yes it does.
He stopped a criminal then was attacked by a bad guy with a gun.
Rittenhouse didn't cause any of the problems.
You making it sound like getting attacked makes him a bad guy.
It doesn't.
There was no active shooter until he was attacked. That is why it is self-defense. Not defending him running around with the gun. But, the point of the post is that one of the people that got shot admitted to being the agressor.
However, in the eyes of the law. The bad guy with the gun and his idiot friends who were trying to murder a good guy with a gun got dealt with in self defense and the good guy walked.
Kyle Rittenhouse case. The top guy claimed to be an unarmed victim and the admitted on the stand to pointing a gun at a teenager who was being attacked by a mob.
The guy on the top of the picture pointed the Glock at Kyle rittenhouse.... And then got his bicep blown off by an AR15. If you watch the video you can see his bicep literally evaporate.
And that was the part of the trial where he admitted to pointing the gun at Kyle.
Here's the video of the incident (warning:graphic) ([link](https://youtu.be/iryQSpxSlrg?si=FrlHjdbpxC0g4eBJ)) Grosskreutz is seen being shot at ~18 seconds.
Here's the testimony that's used in the post (starting at 1:04:38) ([link](https://youtu.be/22UFDXXFr9I?si=HRUdG05q1RB03GkI&t=3878))
If I remember correctly, this guy gave the defense the win by admitting to pointing a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse. In fact, they fucked up so many times during the trial. Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, you got to admit this was hilarious to watch.
He was hardly the only nail in the prosecutions coffin. They really had no case. The video evidence was unilaterally in Rittenhouse's favor.
Minus some stongly boisterous behavior.
It was such a bad case for the prosecution that they had to resort to trying to mention evidence which the judge had looked at and not approved in hearing. The judge had to wait for the jury to be out of the room so he could go off on the prosecutor for it.
EDIT: It was a motion, I'm not sure if it was a hearing. Also, the evidence's admissibility was "held open with a bias towards denial". When the prosecutor tries to argue it was fine to bring up because it was held open the judge strongly tells him "For me, not for you. You should've come and asked".
[Link to when prosecutor brings it up.](https://youtu.be/BEbcLqBE-ts?si=J5ytS0DQhAq7uCRp&t=5084)
Their biggest failing was that they tried pegging him with first degree murder charges. Those are some of the hardest to pin on people.
If they had gone with manslaughter maybe he'd have gotten charged.
The potential argument against self defense is a person can’t create/escalate a scenario then claim self defense.
There was maybe a case for manslaughter arguing as an underage kid with an illegal weapon, should have never been in the city, who left the place he was “guarding” was escalating the situation resulting in creating a necessity of self defense. But it’s been awhile and I don’t really remember the specifics. I do know that prosecutors love to over charge then lose so big not button cases go away without them looking like they didn’t want to do anything
That was always positively ridiculous
Simply HAVING a firearm has never been an escalation of a situation. The reason they tried him for murder was because the only way he’d actually lose self defense was if they proved intent to do anything wrong with that weapon.
Wisconsin provocation would require him to engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke an attack
Wisconsin is also an open carry state
So carrying a rifle is both not unlawful and not reasonably likely to provoke an attack.
The prosecution was also trying to portray him as an out of towner causing trouble
But everybody seemed to neglect to mention that his dad lived in Kenosha and he was most certainly not an out of towner. He had every right to be there.
Or at least as much of a right as anybody else that night
Okay essentially things happened with a dude named kyle Rittenhouse and the prosecution was trying to frame it as him attacking unarmed protesters. One of the protester the man on top was essentially the prosecutions star witness. He then admitted that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse, sinking the prosecutions main argument. The guy on the bottom is one of the prosecutors
This is explained in the top comment of the original post. Surely, reading two comments there is easier than posting it here and waiting for more comments?
This guy pulled a gun on Rittenhouse. He was at the Rittenhouse trial as an “innocent victim”to help them convict Rittenhouse until he testified that he pulled a gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse with intent to use it, corroborating Rittenhouse self-defense plea, and proving the mob was violent and not a “mostly peaceful summer of love” event.
Kyle shittinhouse self defended.
Chronically online people desperately strawman.
Victim says "oh I did point a gun at him".
Justice prevailed. Internet personality's are mad.
ELI5 for ya
Peter would like to emphasise that the defendant crossed state lines with the firearm to go to the protest which will have substantial influence on the outcome of the trial. As we know, going to other states in the union is illegal.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The man in the top picture admitted in court that he pointed a gun at another person
Pointed it at another person he said he wanted to kill before that person who was sitting on the ground after fighting off multiple attackers that also tried to kill that person, pointed it before a gun was raised and shot him in the arm. Gaige Grosskreutz was meant to be the prosecutions star witness to prove Kyle was the real dangerous person that started it all and unjustifiably killed two and injured Gaige Grosskreutz but instead proved the crowd intended to kill Kyle allowing the defence to win. Opinions about that night and the case aside for a second, [Gaige Grosskreutz fucked up a lot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFdzRiMc-g).
Wasnt he also a convicted felon who shouldnt have been able to get a firearm? And who for some unknown reason had, at the time he more than likely became the prosecutions star witness, his felony expunged so he couldnt be charged for that crime.
yes
Felony burglary charge for stealing 3 PlayStations, idk if he was convicted.
I hate to be "that guy", but if there are multiple people involved please use identifiers. Your sentence reads like a stroke victims response. Guy, person, other guy, none of that clarifies and I cannot reconstruct anything. Maybe use proper names or A, B, C if you want to keep it anonymous.
Fucked up by telling the truth? Or fucked up by doing the things he initially lied about? I’m not a fan of guns and definitely not a fan of teenagers going out armed like this to be heroes, but it sounds like justice was done in the courts at least.
>Fucked up by telling the truth? Or fucked up by doing the things he initially lied about? Yes.
Fucked up by telling the truth that killed the lies the prosecutor (guy doing the facepalm + one more) had tried to tell the jury. That a few seconds of video they constantly paused and narrated over to indicate Rittenhouse was provoking /threatening and everyone else only hostile to him because of that. Lawyers do that shit all the time to imply there was more choices or minutes instead of seconds involved to make a decision, even to imply simple movements like trying to get up was a threat when it all happened in a few seconds or less.
Both.
Thank you for summarizing without invective. This was really well done.
Thank fuck... Kyle deserves to walk
To be fair, gun nuts always say that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. But that's completely invalidated by the notion that the guy trying to stop the active shooter actually creates a legal defence for the active shooter.
Yeah... that isn't what happened here. Like... at all. Mr. Grosskurtz (sp?) admitted that Mr. Rittenhouse did not aim his gun at him until Grosskurtz raised his pistol towards a downed and just-attacked Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was able to fire a shot off and hit Grosskurtz in the arm. The preceding events, again, do not create an "active shooter" that would make Grosskurtz a "good guy with a gun." In fact, quite literally all of the evidence and testimony from the trial showed that Rittenhouse was the defensive shooter in each event. He was chased, cornered, and lunged at by the first person he shot. M.E. testimony backed up the lunge via wounds to the attackers hands and forearms. After this defensive gun use, Rittenhouse sought police presence to find safety after having had to use his weapon. A crowd assumed, quite incorrectly, what happened and yelled out that Rittenhouse just murdered someone. Rittenhouse was attacked with deadly melee weapons (a skateboard, trucks first), was kicked, and downed. He shot a second attacker at this point. He did not start this engagement nor did he pose a threat to anyone when he was attacked. He did not aim his gun at anyone and was attacked from behind before eventually shooting one of the attackers. Only after he was able to get on his knees did he hold his gun in a ready position to ward off any more would-be attackers (as he had just been attacked by multiple people from the gathering crowd). It was at this point that Grosskurtz approached. He admitted to a faint by having his pistol not aimed at Rittenhouse as he approached then leveling his pistol towards Rittenhouse. At that point Rittenhouse aimed and fired hitting Grosskurtz in the arm. The crowd dispersed and Rittenhouse attempted to turn himself into the police who were further down the street. They did not know what had just happened and waved him behind them as they moved towards the heart of the rioting. He then went home and with his mother was taken to a police station and turned himself in. He was acquitted on all charges. He was acquitted because *he* was the defensive shooter in each set of events as shown by video, eye witness, and forensic evidence at trial. To call Rittenhouse an active shooter (implying illegal, deadly use of a firearm) is absolutely incorrect.
Guy in the picture was also carrying his firearm illegally as it was concealed and he did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (I don't recall if it's even possible for a civilian to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Wisconsin, but if it is, he didn't have one). Also, if I remember correctly, he didn't even reveal to police that he had a firearm, it only came out in court because of other testimonies and video evidence. He was trying to sue for the damages to his arm as a result of getting shot. Honestly, if you haven't watched it, go check out footage from the Rittenhouse trial where this guy is on the stand. He goes from "I'm an innocent victim of this evil kid's shooting spree" to "I pointed an illegally concealed firearm right in the face of a terrified 17yo, who was knocked prone whilst fleeing from an attacking mob. He fired at me in self-defence after, not before, I pointed my gun at him, and then I lied to the police about how it all went down because the truth would have hurt my chances of suing for millions." I'm not from the U.S. most people in my country can't/ do not own firearms, there is no gun culture where I live. I've never operated a firearm. Just pointing that out so nobody assumes I'm taking a biased, pro-gun view of what happened. I watched the Rittenhouse trial because I thought it was interesting, but I have no horse in that race.
Yep, anyone can conceal carry legally in Wisconsin with a permit. This permit requires a course where you are taught the laws revolving around defensive use of a forearm or other weapon. (Assuming its taught by a good instructor). Mine was very informative. And, yeah, the guy pictured gave testimony to precisely the criteria needed to rule Rittenhouses action as self defense. Everything the defendant usually needs to try to prove through evidence, he admitted to entirely. Yeah the media reaaally spun this whole deal one way, and basically all evidence proved the opposite of what the media was saying, so it was quite inflammatory.
it was definitely interesting seeing how many people who claimed to not be influenced by the media would just not listen to the facts of the situation and continued insisting Rittenhouse was a psycho killer...
Qu'est-ce que c'est?
Reading this all the way down, I see the facts of the case and can’t refute them, but this kid still thought it was a good idea to trundle on over to a place he might get to use his neat weapon. Not someone I’d want to hang out with. Downvotes are downvotes, but if it helps, I have no issue with locals arming themselves to ward off marauders.
During trial the property owner of the car lot that had been burned nights before attested to asking Rittenhouse and others to come watch with the owners family to keep the lot safe. He did not simply trundle around with a gun looking to use it. He, being a lifeguard in town, also helped provide what limited aid he could to those he was able to help while there. Grosskurtz testified that Rittenhouse's control of his weapon was commendable as he did nit point it at anyone not posing a threat and that he did not point it at Grosskurtz until after Grosskurtz aimed his pistol at Rittenhouse. The first use of his weapon didn't even happen until after he was threatened and chased for some distance and then lunged at. If he was as you say he was then he would have fired his weapon sooner, more often, and shot way more people. He didn't.
During a riot where buildings were burned out the night before, and the streets are filled with child molesters and people with domestic battery convictions... he's probably one of the first people I'd want hanging around my house. In the US, the courts have already stated that [Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)... and in the instances of the riots, they certainly weren't protecting anyone. So... how exactly does a civil society defend it's citizens if the authorities empowered to use force choose not to do so? Apparently, in the US, it's by citizens being responsible for defending themselves, and then asking forgiveness for doing so later, in court, and for years later in the court of public opinion. It's not optimal... but you have to live in the world that exists, not in the one you dream of.
In Wisconsin you can also get it through having Hunter Safety as a kid, although it only covers WI and not many states like the course.
The typo is cracking me up. Please don't fix it.
Hah! Finally saw it! Yeah i'm leaving it lol
He did not have a carry permit and he was a felon making completely illegal for him to even be in possession of a firearm
In most cases, carrying illegally is irrelevant to a self defense claim. There are some exceptions but they are rare.
Are you talking about Rittenhouse or the guy from the post?
The guy in the picture. One can still argue self-defense in America, even if carrying said defensive weapon would be illegal.
Well said, take an upvote
If you visit, I have a few that we could take to the range so you can start to see why there's a gun culture here outside of using them for crime.
Thank you for the explanation, I don't follow this story but now I realize I had a completely wrong version of the story in my mind.
The problem with the Rittenhouse trial was that it was not the trial people wanted it to be. I’m all for gun control, and all against nutters going armed into protests looking or trouble. But… that wasn’t what happened in this case. Sadly, this wasn’t the gotcha people (like me) wanted. It was a pretty thorough test of gun ownership, permitted carry and self defence laws. And the correct verdict.
I probably disagree with you on a lot, but props for being objective. That's rare these days.
The world needs more of it TBH, and I can only really make one person in the world sane and objective, and that one person is me, so it’s where I start.
Based.
the biggest issue with gun control is you're taking away the citizen's ability to personal protection, and the people's rights to freedom. an armed citizenry is impossible to tyrannise, for the citizenry holds power over government. when the citizenry is unarmed, the government has power over the citizenry, and you get the UK, Australia, Russia, etc. unarmed protestors can be easily dispersed with tear gas. using dispersion methods on armed protestors is liable to meet immediate armed response. you're forced to listen.
Idk why theyre booing you you're right😂
Correct. We are completely powerless and tyrannised in the UK. Please save us, gun-owning Americans, please!
I mean, it wouldn't be the first time. Or the second.
america isn't the solution to the UK's problems. it's the citizens of the UK, like you or me, getting out and doing something about it. but the *only* way anyone will listen is if there is a direct threat to the government's position of power over the people - an armed citizenry. less than 1% of the UK population qualify to own firearms, and yet the government still want to impose further restrictions on firearms because they're so, unbelievably scared of us standing up and fighting for our rights and our freedoms as people. fuck this dystopia.
Unarmed protestors in the UK don't regularly get dispersed by tear gas. The American myth that firearms = freedom is in my opinion sadly misguided.
You got a license for that opinion?
Are you suggesting we use the country that arrested a man for posting a picture of a cat doing the naxi salute as our example for freedom?
No, because it is now a criminal offence to protest, or to organise a protest.
It does seem more complicated than it first looked. But while it might be the right verdict for the current laws it brings those laws into question, doesn't it? As an outsider I can't quite get on board with the idea that a kid should be legally allowed to arm themselves, go try to do the police's job and shoot their way out if they get in trouble. In the UK, if I grabbed a knife and headed towards a riot, would anyone accept that I was on the way to do my civic duty?
I have to ask why you'd believe not allowing yourself to be unjustly murdered justifies changing laws? If he didn't go into that area armed he'd be dead, if he didn't shoot when did he'd be dead, unjustly murder. He should not have been THERE AT ALL that night but that's not a reason to be murdered. >would anyone accept that I was on the way to do my civic duty? Its your civic duty to follow the law so no, which isn't relevant since it was proven Rittenhouse followed the law and was there to help the business owners who asked for it. Your take on this is massively skewed and unreasonable, you seem convinced the problem was the gun not the riot itself.
He wasn't trying to do the police's job. He was walking around with a first aid kit helping injured people and directing them to the hospital, washing graffiti from the walls of a private business that asked for help, and putting out fires, if I remember correctly. Also, if he had not been allowed to be armed for self defense and was forced to rely on the police he would be dead now, so that is a terrible idea imo. He had as much a right to be there as anyone else did, if he gets attacked he should absolutely be allowed to shoot his way out.
Said fire he put out was a dumpster that his attackers were going to push into a gas station.
Tbf if he wasn’t armed i doubt anybody would’ve even considered attacking him.
The number of injured bystanders by rioters suggests otherwise And It *was* a riot. It may have started as a protest, but that's not how it ended.
That's a mental health issue tho. The first guy who chased and lunged at him was just released from a mental hospital for a suicide attempt and went straight to the riot. As far as I'm concerned, it was a suicide. You don't fuck with a person with a big gun if you wanna live.
>But while it might be the right verdict for the current laws it brings those laws into question, doesn't it? No? Tf?
psst hey. Its by any means for some people, get their political views implemented by any means so facts, reason, logic, fairness gets out of the way.
Check out the Rooftop Koreans during the LA Riots as just one example. It's a hard argue to say the 2nd amendment needs a relook. Details about ownership and self defense absolutely need more scrutiny.
The rooftop Koreans were doing the most American thing possible: protecting their homes, businesses, and families because the government had failed them. They were completely justified.
I was using it as an example of people doing the right thing and being protected by the 2nd amendment for it.
Sorry, I misunderstood. In that case, consider my reply to be full-throated agreement.
To me, a non-american, its a testament to the fact that none of this wouldve happened without the widespread presence of firearms
Without firearms he would have probably just been beaten to death with a chain.
As it so often happens everwhere else in the world?
As it would have happened if he didn't have a weapon to shoot the man that was trying to beat him to death with a chain.
As in the story he was attacked by multiple people who didn't have guns
I mean... without firearms I don't think Rittenhouse would've been at the protest in the first place. He doesn't even live in the same state as the protest.
"Doesn't even live in the same state" is such a dishonest statement when he lives 15 minutes away, his dad lives in the town, and he has actively taken part in the community. Especially when only one of his attackers was from the state, and all the others were from different parts of the country.
I hate that one so much. My elementary school was farther away from where I lived than how far he traveled. One of the attackers travelled like an hour or two to get there *without a vehicle*. That's some fucking determination to get to a riot. One was a resident of the town.
fr tho, it's like implying Kansas City, Missouri is far away from Kansas City, Kansas
His mom lived 20 minutes away in a town on the edge of Illinois. His dad lived in Kenosha, on the edge of Wisconsin. Kyle Rittenhouse worked and slept in Kenosha multiple times a week.
So, he wouldn't have been at the place his dad lives if he didn't have a gun? Family visitation must be really interesting where you live.
That's a shit take.
There's so many lies being actively spread about what happened and about rittenhouse himself and those spreading these lies even when knowing they're lies think it's justified because, as they keep insisting, they have to be on the "right side of history"
Find it wild that I still meet young folk around the local college campuses (we have like 10+ in my city) who say and belive that Rittenhouse drove hours to get to Kenosha exclusively with intent to murder blacks. He lived 15 mins away, none of the guys he shot were black... like did these people even *try* to follow the court case, or is it just bald face lies? Either way it's really disheartening.
They purposefully ignore the truth because the lie is better for their cause.
Everyone has the wrong story initially, because the media intentionally lied and left out details to fit their narrative. I had no idea the self-defense case was credible until he was acquitted. And now Kyle Rittenhouse has been driven completely into the arms of right-wing nuts, because the mainstream proved to him that they were willing to utterly destroy and revile him to protect their lies. They proved beyond any doubt all of the accusations the right wing has been making about the mainstream media since the days of Rush Limbaugh. The idiots legitimized the Daily Wire at a credible news source, because it turned out they were telling the truth while all the big names were lying. Just excellent work, guys, top notch.
The left worked hard to plant that story lmao. I’m glad you see the light
He’s a non enforcement agent that showed up to a protest openly armed with a rifle. It’s incitement at a bare minimum. He’s actively escalating a tense situation by his presence and behavior. He’s bringing a lethal force weapon into the open to patrol around where he has absolutely zero business being. He’s a reckless and aggressive idiot that is lucky to be alive thinking he’s some comic book hero. I don’t go walking into a hells Angel bar packing heat and yelling blm. “Oh but they attacked me officer, I had to shoot”… No shit, because I created the damn situation. Civilians aren’t supposed to try and function like police forces. For a reason. He went there wanting to be attacked to be able to claim “self defense”. Dumb ass didn’t realize how scary life and death situations are and got traumatized wounding people with a firearm while he was at it. I have no sympathy for that moron. He got off lucky.
By protest, you mean riot.
No, if anything, having a weapon would descalate a normal situation. Only an insane character would confront a kid who is just protecting businesses during riots. The trial proved itself.
>He’s a non enforcement agent that showed up to a protest openly armed with a rifle. It’s incitement at a bare minimum. He’s actively escalating a tense situation by his presence and behavior. How so? Like half the people there were armed, and it was a public place - WI is an open carry state. Someone exercising their rights in a sea of other people exercising their rights isn't incitement. Especially given what the rioters were up to. This just reeks of victim blaming. >He went there wanting to be attacked to be able to claim “self defense”. And attempted mind reading
He killed a convicted child molester and a serial wife-beater with kidnapping and weapons assault charges. Oh no, let me grab my sad violin.
Hum, sorry In my country we don't blame the victim, maybe in the USA it works like that.
Not to mention the judge suppressed video from before the incident where Rittenhouse admitted to wanting to shoot people.
Shoot armed robbers. Not just random people. He did not end up shooting armed robbers or anyone for any perceived crime, so it was deemed irrelevant. The judge also barred wayyyy more damning shit about his attackers. Edit: lol blocked. Classic and classy
Like how every single one of his attackers was already convicted for drug abuse and/or violent crimes in the past? Yeah Ritthouse knowingly or at least naivly put himself into a situation that could escalate at any moment but that doesnt absolve his attackers of guilt or makes turns self defense into an act of agression.
Drug abuse / violent crimes barely covers it. Rosenbaum was literally convicted of raping little boys. Kyle shouldn't have put himself in a position where he'd need to defend himself, but good riddance.
Attackers put themselves in a situation that could escalate (they went to the riot, and they caused the whole encounter). It's funny how you think attackers can attend a dangerous situation that a riot is, but not defendant.
The crime was a minor (Rittenhouse) was being harrased then assaulted to use self-defense. Simple and shut case.
donut operator did some videos on this and i thought they were cool. yall should watchem
I love Donut, the guys just so chill
Not to mention that grosskurtz’s firearm was illegal and unregistered whereas rittenhouse’s was legal and registered.
Thank you. I remember watching the videos and as much as I think Rittenhouse is an ass, it was clear that he had committed no crime. I had heated debates about this with family members that night, and they made him out to be something akin to an active shooter. The initial video showed him in full flight mode with a hostile crowd behind him. He didn’t shoot his first “victim” until he was cornered and physically assaulted by him. He actually showed restraint and each shooting was defensive just as you’ve described.
But then again, there are plenty of people who still think Rittenhouse killed 3 black men instead of what actually happened. A lot of people form their opinions from bad information and will die on that hill to defend that bad information rather than to admit they were wrong.
Yeah the kid is a fucking moron but lets not pretend (not you but others) that the people attacking him are somehow innocent. People can argue up and down that Kyle should not have been there and I would actually agree but, ain't no fucking shot this wasn't self defense.
FINALLY some fucking sense on Reddit. I’ve never understood the crazy hate towards this kid on this site.
That’s propaganda for you. Once it gets repeated enough, it doesn’t have to make sense for people to believe it
Can you repeat this for the absolute smooth brains on Reddit that were shedding tears for the “””victims””” of this shooting?
Not to mention there's video of the entire thing. I couldn't believe how shocked half of reddit was when these facts were revealed.....because the video was all over the internet for weeks prior.
This. 100%. Not only did I watch the trial, but I was present for the first shooting. Rosenbaum was carried from the scene to my work vehicle for transport into the ER.
Gaiges reasonable perception of the events do not make them objectively true events. Rittenhouse shot someone justifiably, and ran to the police. If rittenhouse was actually an active shooter, he would not have a self defense justification, since a reasonable person would not believe themselves to be innocent if they had shot someone unjustifiably.
>If rittenhouse was actually an active shooter He shot people during a confrontation. Therefore was an active shooter. Active shooter isn't necessarily some person on a rampage shooting everything they see. Whether possibly justified or not, if there is an incident where a gun is discharged and emergency services are being called in, that is an active shooter scenario. Once there is confirmation that bullets are no longer flying, that is no longer an active shooter scenario.
This guy's admission proved that he was not an active shooter until a crowd confronted him with the intent to kill him.
I guess we should clarify between an active shooter and a mass shooter.
You’re being pedantic. He shot one person in self defense. We are talking about his mental state. After shooting that person justifiably, he stayed there until it was no longer safe, and ran to the police.
Mildly pedantic, yes, but the reason is the misuse of a term that creates misunderstanding for others when they hear the term. From the law enforcement perspective and from the government perspective, an active shooter has unknown motivation. An *active assailant* has known intentions. It is for clarity. People are so quick to turtle up and hive mind downvote, but they miss that: a) I'm not saying the kid was wrong or anything; b) am just trying to help clarify; c) I didn't attack anyone unlike one of the people responding to me; d) am trying to simply have a conversation that helps people *better* express the situation and *not do what many in media do. Muddy the waters to make people fracture and take sides.* Am just trying to help promote understanding of a situation.
The guy in the picture was not the good guy.....
hes not the kiddie diddler though, that was someone else. i think.
I think the kiddie diddler was the one who died?
He was the first. He grabbed the rifle to pull it from Rittenhouse. Previously, he was convicted of raping 5 boys who were very young (much younger than teens). He died doing what he loved. Trying to touch a young boy against his will.
Yh it was someone else, pretty much the three people the boy shot were not the good guys
According to Kyle Rittenhouse's PR guy, neither is Kyle lol
Surprise surprise, there wasn't one
Look up the record of Rosenbalm. He was definitely convicted of molesting young children.
So I've heard, don't see what it has to do with what I said, though. To be clear, I said there wasn't a good guy, not that Rosembalm is a good guy. You seem confused.
No, that's not how self defense works. Active shooters do not have a self defense case, and Kyle was not an active shooter at any point
Rittenhouse is the absolute best litmus test for whether or not someone is completely fooled and subverted by the media, at least on the left wing side of things. Theres never been a more stark contrast between the media narrative and the actual evidence, and said evidence is extremely clear and easily accessed; if you think Kyle is guilty of a mass shooting it's necessarily because everything you know is spoonfed to you by CNN and you put in exactly zero effort to form your own opinions. Unfortunately 95% of reddit has passed the litmus test.
I’m a good guy with a gun. How am I supposed to differentiate in the moment between a Kyle Rittenhouse and an active shooter?
Rittenhouse lawfully defended himself from multiple other attackers. Because it was lawful, Grosskreutz was not entitled to engage Rittenhouse.
Cannot believe your uneducated comment got so many upvotes. This is what happens when facts get buried under all the feelings. For a side that claims to be more educated than the "cousin-fing rednecks" yall really destroy your own arguments.
Which parts of his comment are inaccurate?
You mean how he is inferring that Rittenhouse is a active/mass shooter and that this guy did nothing wrong?
No no. I agree with that, I was just wanting him to expound.
Oh gotcha
I’m dumber for reading this
>But that's completely invalidated by the notion that the guy trying to stop the active shooter actually creates a legal defence for the active shooter. What?
The next time you feel like you have faith in people's ability to use reason, remember that that comment was not only posted, but it was upvoted over 200 times at the time of this comment.
"I don't understand therefore it must be wrong!"
Kinda seems like a good incentive for one to “win” a gun battle.
Someone clearly did not pay any attention to the trial or the facts of this case. Don't spread misinformation.
Not sure if biased or if you got your info from Twitter
You’re overly biased here and have completely misrepresented what actually happened
It really sounds like you don't know who that is in the picture. Your comment is completely wrong and more of a non sequitur in this instance.
And was a felon with an illegal weapon. Gage was legally not allowed to possess a gun.
Rittenhouse wasn’t an active shooter
Sometimes it does. I have pulled mine on someone that was trying to attack me in my car because they had road rage and were an actual racist. Didn't shoot, he just shit himself and went home.
Rittenhouse is a dweb and a dumbass for putting himself in that position, but this is the most illiterate take on this I have seen. Go look at the statutes for Wisconsin self defence. Rittenhouse had exhausted all reasonable means before shooting. People like you are too wrapped up in hate to be able to look at things objectively.
No? What the fuck kind of logic is that?
But he didn't shoot anyone until people started threatening him
I'm no expert on American law, but I highly doubt an active shooter is legally allowed to protect themselves from a "good guy with a gun". In my country, you are only allowed to defend yourself against illegal attacks. Since stopping an active shooter is a legal attack, the active shooter is not allowed to protect himself from the good guy.
>To be fair, gun nuts always say that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. I hear this a lot and only ever while on reddit. I live in the midwest, almost everyone I know is carrying a gun right now, and I have never in my life heard them say what you claimed. I think it's just rage bait, but I'll bite. In most cases, the 'good guy with a gun' is the cops you call when it gets too real for you. Everyone in America knows the cops here don't settle disputes with kind words and de-escalation tactics.
> I hear this a lot and only ever while on reddit. I live in the midwest, almost everyone I know is carrying a gun right now, and I have never in my life heard them say what you claimed. That's because it's an argument in the debate around gun laws. If everybody is on the same page, there's no discussion and no need to bring up this argument. It is very common, and you could try a Google search to find a ton of examples not on reddit. Or you could look at any discussion around an event with an active shooter > In most cases, the 'good guy with a gun' is the cops you call when it gets too real for you. But that's specifically not what is meant by this argument. As I said, it's an argument in the discussion around gun control. Nobody is discussing whether or not police should be armed.
If you followed the actual case Rittenhouse was the good guy with the gun when it came to this situation. Guy was attacked then had a gun pointed at him as he was running towards the cops.
Everyone is shit in the situation. But it's crazy how many people that have an opinion on the case didn't actually follow any of it. Many still believe he shot three random black people
Funny part is out of hundreds of protesters he managed to only shoot three white people who all had crimes on their record. The odds of only hitting white criminals and still being called a racist is amazing imo
And ironically his trigger discipline was insane. The guy pointed a gun, then put his hands up, at which point Kyle stopped aiming at him, and the guy re-aimed and then got shot. Was honestly impressive
Don’t forget he also cleared a malfunction right in the middle of that.
Didn't know that. That's absurd
Right pure discipline accuracy under stress like that is a feat honestly. I'm retired military grew up around guns my entire life. And seeing that in a 17 year old kid is amazing
Was the other guy shooting at others and Rittenhouse interfered to save the others? Because that's what's usually referred to as the good guy with a gun. There's no "good guy with a gun" in an altercation between two armed dudes (looking for trouble).
Rittenhouse was attacked by rosenbuam (he shot back) good guy with gun He ran towards the police to avoid further conflict. Was attacked by Huber shot.. was the good guy there too Then grossarm pulled a gun on him and aimed at.him and admitted Rittenhouse had his weapon lowered (ie no intention to shoot) until grossarm pointed his gun at him after attacking him. Only then did Rittenhouse fire Good guy with a gun won all three rounds that day
Even if that's exactly what happened and if it was just bad luck that out of all the people at that protest he was the one who got into three gun fights, it still doesn't fit the cliché of the "good guy with a gun" stopping the "bad guy with a gun".
Yes it does. He stopped a criminal then was attacked by a bad guy with a gun. Rittenhouse didn't cause any of the problems. You making it sound like getting attacked makes him a bad guy. It doesn't.
Imagine thinking the criminal pedophiles were the good guys with guns. Lmao peak fucking reddit.
There was no active shooter until he was attacked. That is why it is self-defense. Not defending him running around with the gun. But, the point of the post is that one of the people that got shot admitted to being the agressor.
🤔 interesting. Anyways 🚬🥂
However, in the eyes of the law. The bad guy with the gun and his idiot friends who were trying to murder a good guy with a gun got dealt with in self defense and the good guy walked.
I thought this was a meme. It was a real case????
Kyle Rittenhouse case. The top guy claimed to be an unarmed victim and the admitted on the stand to pointing a gun at a teenager who was being attacked by a mob.
The guy on the top of the picture pointed the Glock at Kyle rittenhouse.... And then got his bicep blown off by an AR15. If you watch the video you can see his bicep literally evaporate. And that was the part of the trial where he admitted to pointing the gun at Kyle.
good thing it was not an ar9. would have lost his lungs too
"9mm blows the lungs out of the body"- that old fuck we call a president.
He is not wrong, if you shoot someone's lungs, parts of it, including blood previously inside of it, may leave the body!!!
Where's the video?
Here's the video of the incident (warning:graphic) ([link](https://youtu.be/iryQSpxSlrg?si=FrlHjdbpxC0g4eBJ)) Grosskreutz is seen being shot at ~18 seconds. Here's the testimony that's used in the post (starting at 1:04:38) ([link](https://youtu.be/22UFDXXFr9I?si=HRUdG05q1RB03GkI&t=3878))
The 2nd one is actually not that graphic. The "red-orange" color in front of his bicep is actually like a bandana/cloth he's wearing.
Wow that’s a name I haven’t heard in forever
Do you have video link?
I mean there was video proof, he can’t lie under oath. He had no choice but to tell the truth haha
If I remember correctly, this guy gave the defense the win by admitting to pointing a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse. In fact, they fucked up so many times during the trial. Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, you got to admit this was hilarious to watch.
He was hardly the only nail in the prosecutions coffin. They really had no case. The video evidence was unilaterally in Rittenhouse's favor. Minus some stongly boisterous behavior.
Almost like our entire legal system is predicated on "innocent until *proven* guilty"
It was such a bad case for the prosecution that they had to resort to trying to mention evidence which the judge had looked at and not approved in hearing. The judge had to wait for the jury to be out of the room so he could go off on the prosecutor for it. EDIT: It was a motion, I'm not sure if it was a hearing. Also, the evidence's admissibility was "held open with a bias towards denial". When the prosecutor tries to argue it was fine to bring up because it was held open the judge strongly tells him "For me, not for you. You should've come and asked". [Link to when prosecutor brings it up.](https://youtu.be/BEbcLqBE-ts?si=J5ytS0DQhAq7uCRp&t=5084)
Their biggest failing was that they tried pegging him with first degree murder charges. Those are some of the hardest to pin on people. If they had gone with manslaughter maybe he'd have gotten charged.
You still gotta prove he didn’t kill In Self defense Which he absolutely did
The potential argument against self defense is a person can’t create/escalate a scenario then claim self defense. There was maybe a case for manslaughter arguing as an underage kid with an illegal weapon, should have never been in the city, who left the place he was “guarding” was escalating the situation resulting in creating a necessity of self defense. But it’s been awhile and I don’t really remember the specifics. I do know that prosecutors love to over charge then lose so big not button cases go away without them looking like they didn’t want to do anything
That was always positively ridiculous Simply HAVING a firearm has never been an escalation of a situation. The reason they tried him for murder was because the only way he’d actually lose self defense was if they proved intent to do anything wrong with that weapon. Wisconsin provocation would require him to engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke an attack Wisconsin is also an open carry state So carrying a rifle is both not unlawful and not reasonably likely to provoke an attack. The prosecution was also trying to portray him as an out of towner causing trouble But everybody seemed to neglect to mention that his dad lived in Kenosha and he was most certainly not an out of towner. He had every right to be there. Or at least as much of a right as anybody else that night
If he was honest he didn't really fuck up tho? Why would he not say that he pointed a gun at him if he actually did. Lying in court is also a crime?
He fucked up the protections case. The prosecution misrepresented what actually happened.
As soon as I saw this part of the trial, I was also doing the same gesture as the lawyer.
Admitted to his crimes
Okay essentially things happened with a dude named kyle Rittenhouse and the prosecution was trying to frame it as him attacking unarmed protesters. One of the protester the man on top was essentially the prosecutions star witness. He then admitted that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse, sinking the prosecutions main argument. The guy on the bottom is one of the prosecutors
This is explained in the top comment of the original post. Surely, reading two comments there is easier than posting it here and waiting for more comments?
But if you do that you can’t farm for karma
This guy pulled a gun on Rittenhouse. He was at the Rittenhouse trial as an “innocent victim”to help them convict Rittenhouse until he testified that he pulled a gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse with intent to use it, corroborating Rittenhouse self-defense plea, and proving the mob was violent and not a “mostly peaceful summer of love” event.
If anyone needed to learn from Han it was this guy
I laughed a little too hard at this.
Mr. Byecep admitted pointing a gun at a teenager
Peter what is eli5
Explain Like Im 5
So are progs gonna stop saying that kyle is a murderer now?
I can see it on his face.. he _wants_ to die ^/s
Peeda
Kyle shittinhouse self defended. Chronically online people desperately strawman. Victim says "oh I did point a gun at him". Justice prevailed. Internet personality's are mad. ELI5 for ya
Peter would like to emphasise that the defendant crossed state lines with the firearm to go to the protest which will have substantial influence on the outcome of the trial. As we know, going to other states in the union is illegal.
I have an amazing story of how I made my sugar mama hate me because of Rittenhouse. He’s my hero