I easily found reference to the cell phone video in the NYT. See above.
Seems kind of strange that a guy living in Vietnam who followed the trial not very avidly read this several times while so many others who attentively followed it never read this at all.
Rittenhouse wanted to shoot people. That's why he brought a gun. An assault rifle, no less.
The moment he had a pretext to claim self-defense, someone was dead. Of course he didn't just walk around "I don't like your face" KAPOW because not even a cartoonishly incompetent prosecutor and a snake of a red state judge could have gotten him off that.
So why did the other medic, Huber, bring his gun? Because he wanted to shoot people, or because he thought he might need it if attacked himself?
One of the most common cognitive flaws among humans is in regard to projecting motives to other people. The entire point of the trial was to assess the circumstances and motives of undisputed shootings - were they self defense or not? If the prosecution won, those shot would legally be victims unjustly harmed; if the defense won, then those shot would be aggressors from whom he was legitimately defending himself. The judge ruling that the prosecution could not call them "victims" until the jury had made that determination was standard procedure, not to bias the jury by presuming the outcome of a self defense trial. It would be routine in other self defense cases as well (including with defendants of other races). This was according to lawyers in the area. But some liberal sources failed to mention that context, and implied or stated that the judge was being outrageous and biased.
Likewise, you are projecting motives to Rittenhouse. While awaiting the video or testimony, what I have seen so far in terms of Rittenhouse's actual behavior fits a model of self defense *far* better than one of intending to find somebody to kill. Does your model of a killer proud boy include peacefully treating protesters to first aid and never threatening anybody in any way until being physically assaulted? If you are taking those as just laying cover in hopes of later getting a chance to shoot somebody, then we are getting into dicey territory.
I didn't save any links but I heard this several times and I believe it came up in the case and was ruled inadmissible, as with referring to the people he shot as "victims." I could not find it again any easier than you but since my main source of news is the Washington Post and not YouTube it should not be hard to track down.
It was definitely not a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote. You do however have my word that I am not making it up nor propagating dubious sources.
Honestly, Steve, everything about this case disgusts me. Both the finding of innocence and the wild charges of white supremacy. In my mind "stupid kid" and "fucking second amendment" cover it. Clearly though this moron was amped up on the whole hero image, stalking around wit gun in hand and at the ready.
If someone wants to bracket a few seconds and say "look, he was defending himself!" I am not playing. He got an assault rifle and waded into chaos. Any mentally sound person would have stayed home.
OK, let's be clear. There was rioting, arson, and mayhem; people were already being injured (tho not killed) before the first shooting. The records suggest a minimum of 3 other guns out in the crowd that night (ie: not including the armed folks defending the car lot), one handgun seen and heard on the videotape just before Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, one firing 3 shots just after, and the one that Huber pointed at Rosenbaum; but accounts say there were others.
I would agree that Rittenhouse was foolish. But by your standards, there was nobody on the street that night who was of sound mind, including the 3 folks who got shot.
"before he went to Kenosha he told a lot of his friends that he wanted to shoot people there. Many witnesses to this."
Really??!! That's the first I'm hearing about this and I thought I'd seen everything there was to see on the case. Do you have a source?
I easily found reference to the cell phone video in the NYT. See above.
Seems kind of strange that a guy living in Vietnam who followed the trial not very avidly read this several times while so many others who attentively followed it never read this at all.
Rittenhouse wanted to shoot people. That's why he brought a gun. An assault rifle, no less.
The moment he had a pretext to claim self-defense, someone was dead. Of course he didn't just walk around "I don't like your face" KAPOW because not even a cartoonishly incompetent prosecutor and a snake of a red state judge could have gotten him off that.
So why did the other medic, Huber, bring his gun? Because he wanted to shoot people, or because he thought he might need it if attacked himself?
One of the most common cognitive flaws among humans is in regard to projecting motives to other people. The entire point of the trial was to assess the circumstances and motives of undisputed shootings - were they self defense or not? If the prosecution won, those shot would legally be victims unjustly harmed; if the defense won, then those shot would be aggressors from whom he was legitimately defending himself. The judge ruling that the prosecution could not call them "victims" until the jury had made that determination was standard procedure, not to bias the jury by presuming the outcome of a self defense trial. It would be routine in other self defense cases as well (including with defendants of other races). This was according to lawyers in the area. But some liberal sources failed to mention that context, and implied or stated that the judge was being outrageous and biased.
Likewise, you are projecting motives to Rittenhouse. While awaiting the video or testimony, what I have seen so far in terms of Rittenhouse's actual behavior fits a model of self defense *far* better than one of intending to find somebody to kill. Does your model of a killer proud boy include peacefully treating protesters to first aid and never threatening anybody in any way until being physically assaulted? If you are taking those as just laying cover in hopes of later getting a chance to shoot somebody, then we are getting into dicey territory.
I didn't save any links but I heard this several times and I believe it came up in the case and was ruled inadmissible, as with referring to the people he shot as "victims." I could not find it again any easier than you but since my main source of news is the Washington Post and not YouTube it should not be hard to track down.
It was definitely not a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote. You do however have my word that I am not making it up nor propagating dubious sources.
Honestly, Steve, everything about this case disgusts me. Both the finding of innocence and the wild charges of white supremacy. In my mind "stupid kid" and "fucking second amendment" cover it. Clearly though this moron was amped up on the whole hero image, stalking around wit gun in hand and at the ready.
If someone wants to bracket a few seconds and say "look, he was defending himself!" I am not playing. He got an assault rifle and waded into chaos. Any mentally sound person would have stayed home.
OK, let's be clear. There was rioting, arson, and mayhem; people were already being injured (tho not killed) before the first shooting. The records suggest a minimum of 3 other guns out in the crowd that night (ie: not including the armed folks defending the car lot), one handgun seen and heard on the videotape just before Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, one firing 3 shots just after, and the one that Huber pointed at Rosenbaum; but accounts say there were others.
I would agree that Rittenhouse was foolish. But by your standards, there was nobody on the street that night who was of sound mind, including the 3 folks who got shot.
I didn't say that, didn't say anything remotely like that. I wasn't there.
But I do know that chaos attracts people who think mayhem is fun. There had been two days of mayhem that the cops did nothing about.
And only one person at the melee actually killed anyone.