Grosskreutz shouldn't have had a gun either (his concealed carry permit had expired), but at the end of the day he didn't kill anyone, which sort of sets him apart.
I'm not trying to say that the people Rittenhouse shot at were angels. But none of them killed anyone.
They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. The reason Kyle wasn't murdered is not due to their sense of morals but instead their incompetence as combatants. It seems the rioters had more experience assaulting women and children and were ill equiped to assault a young man.
> They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself.
Again, not trying to paint these guys as angels, but it does not seem that this is correct:
- the 'mob' chasing Rittenhouse that led eventually to him opening fire on Rosenbaum were shouting 'get him', and may even have shouted 'kill him'. We know that at least one of these people had a gun, but this gun was fired up into the air, rather than at Rittenhouse, and Rosenbaum threw a bag of clothes at Rittenhouse. Yes, Rosenbaum was approaching Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse was probably scared, but it doesn't look like Rosenbaum was about to kill him.
- Huber's half-hearted hit with the skateboard hardly seems like the kind of force he could have mustered if his intent were to smash Rittenhouse's head in (it also seems from the video as though Huber was already moving away from Rittenhouse by the time Rittenhouse shot him)
- Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his pistol drawn and pointed at Rittenhouse, but did not fire at him, instead opting to try to disarm him. If he'd been trying to kill him, he'd have had the chance to do so.
I think if readers compare our arguments they will be able to come to their own conclusions. I feel I have sufficiently made my case and don't believe I can offer you anything that would change your mind.
To be honest, I'm not sure there are many people left (certainly here on HN) who haven't already looked at the evidence themselves and come to one conclusion or another.
Thanks for the discussion though, always interesting to hear someone else's point of view, even more so when neither of us has any different facts to the other.
Dude what is the matter with you. Did you really just try to rationalize a grown man hitting a child with a skateboard as being done half-heartedly?
Anyone stupid enough to charge someone carrying a weapon is not the kinda person you wanna take a chance being in close proximity with. You expect him to just stand there and take a beating? Or try to talk it out while the mob is threatening to kill him. How much time should he spend analyzing the situation?
Feel free to stand around and get beat down by a mob while you try to explain yourself. I think the rest of us would rather deal with a jury.
Maybe half-hearted was a poor choice of words, but the video clearly shows the skateboard hit, and it is obvious that Huber was capable of swinging much harder and did not.
Maybe children shouldn't have guns. Maybe children shouldn't get themselves into situations where they feel the only way they can survive is to shoot and kill people.
Why would Huber half-heartedly swing the skateboard?
If he believed Kyle was an active shooter why would he "pull" his punches so to speak. If he didn't believe Kyle was an active shooter than he didn't have any reasons to attack and disarm him.
That's a good question, and it's a shame we can't ask him.
My personal opinion is that he wasn't trying to use the skateboard as a weapon, he was trying to use it as a shield, or to give him a bigger surface to push the gun with.
Either that or that the idea came to him too late to swing fully.
Those are both good questions though, and I don't have answers to either.
I'm not trying to say that the people Rittenhouse shot at were angels. But none of them killed anyone.