The first guy the kid shot deserved it.  He was an asshole.  F**kn troublemaker.  The second and third guys were the ones trying to be Batman and Robin.

Kinda nutshell.
First guy was aggressor and kinda cornered Rittenhouse.
Second guy smashed him in the head with a skateboard while he was on the ground and tried to grab his weapon.
Third guy pulled a gun on him as he kept approaching.

They’ll get him on minor in possession of a weapon.

The semantics are key though.
Victim way different from rioter.

Edit:
P.S. there is, or were, a crapload of videos showing the shootings from all kinds of angles.

Wasn't the first guy (who's a pedo) trying to grab his AR?  I'm going by memory.

Also IIRC, he was allowed by law to posses the AR.  Someone can correct if wrong. I'm sure we covered pages ago, but I don't remember.

I would be very surprised if he got a "fair" trial.  This should not have even gone to trial, with all the video that there is of the incident and minutes prior to the shootings.

Wasn't the first guy (who's a pedo) trying to grab his AR?  I'm going by memory.

Also IIRC, he was allowed by law to posses the AR.  Someone can correct if wrong. I'm sure we covered pages ago, but I don't remember.

I would be very surprised if he got a "fair" trial.  This should not have even gone to trial, with all the video that there is of the incident and minutes prior to the shootings.

Shades of Derek Chauvin. Although this is a self defense case the quality of the trial will be along those lines. Meaning this is probably going to be more a court of opinion than fact.

If the defense is smart they’ll label the guys who got shot as “attackers”.
He shot his attackers. Which the video all backs up.

And bicep guy still hasnt been charged as a felon with a gun.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Wasn't the first guy (who's a pedo) trying to grab his AR?  I'm going by memory.

Also IIRC, he was allowed by law to posses the AR.  Someone can correct if wrong. I'm sure we covered pages ago, but I don't remember.

I would be very surprised if he got a "fair" trial.  This should not have even gone to trial, with all the video that there is of the incident and minutes prior to the shootings.

I forget the journalists name but he was on Tim pools podcast and stated that he saw the pedo reaching for kyles AR. I believe he’s gonna be a witness in the trial.

Also yes Kyle was legally allowed to possess the weapon. The only thing he will be on the hook for is if they can prove that his buddy straw purchased the AR for him. Apparently Kyle have his buddy money to purchase the weapon for him.

And bicep guy still hasnt been charged as a felon with a gun.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Nah they won’t do that, he tried to stop a white supremacist! They’ll probably wipe his record clean and give him a lifetime conceal carry permit good in all states.

Nah they won’t do that, he tried to stop a white supremacist! They’ll probably wipe his record clean and give him a lifetime conceal carry permit good in all states.

He was on the news like a savior.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The men the kid shot were not victims in my opinion.  So I agree with the judge there.

But I don't think those men were looters.  Rioters?  Maybe.  But more like thrill seekers and lookie loos.  Adventure seekers with nothing more constructive to do with their f**kn lives.

The first guy the kid shot deserved it.  He was an asshole.  F**kn troublemaker.  The second and third guys were the ones trying to be Batman and Robin.

It is possible the 2nd and 3rd people thought Rittenhouse was some sort of active shooter in all the chaos but certainly the first guy had no justification in attacking Rittenhouse when he was just trying to put out a dumpster fire.

And bicep guy still hasnt been charged as a felon with a gun.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

That could be because they didn't recover the gun in the video.

Could also be that it is difficult to use someone both as a witness and as a suspect at the same time. Prosecutors would want him to testify but if he testifies that could be used against him in his own trial so to clear up that they may have struck a cooperation deal where he doesn't get prosecuted if he cooperates with the trial.

It is possible the 2nd and 3rd people thought Rittenhouse was some sort of active shooter in all the chaos but certainly the first guy had no justification in attacking Rittenhouse when he was just trying to put out a dumpster fire.

You said the first guy had no justification.

Is there any scenario in which the 2nd and 3rd assailants' violence could be justified -- I mean legally.

If #1 attacks Kyle, and Kyle is now running down the street, and 2 others join in the chase, what was their justification? 

#2 and #3 didn't know why #1 was chasing Kyle.  #1 could have told them anything to get them to join him.  Becoming a vigilante as part of a 3 person posse without witnessing Kyle do anything wrong will never be justification for #2 & #3..

It was probably the result of mob mentality, where #2 & #3 just followed the leader.  No rhyme or reason to their actions.  That can't be the justification you speak of.

That could be because they didn't recover the gun in the video.

Could also be that it is difficult to use someone both as a witness and as a suspect at the same time. Prosecutors would want him to testify but if he testifies that could be used against him in his own trial so to clear up that they may have struck a cooperation deal where he doesn't get prosecuted if he cooperates with the trial.

It works against the prosecution, though -- to not charge him.

If it appears that "witness" got a walk in exchange for his testimony, his credibility is in question.  Is he lying to keep himself out of prison?

Still my opinion that Rittenhouse, asshole #1 and Batman and Robin (#2 and #3) shouldn't have been out there in the first place.

Peaceful protest?  Yes.  By all means.

Any other reason to be out there is wrong.  My opinion:  All 4 of them had no intentions for peaceful protest.

Batman and Robin! 

Or maybe Bluntman and Chronic. . .

Remind me again.  It was Asshole #1 and Skaterboy that didn't survive, but Bicepguy did? 

Batman and Robin! 

Or maybe Bluntman and Chronic. . .

Remind me again.  It was Asshole #1 and Skaterboy that didn't survive, but Bicepguy did?

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

That could be because they didn't recover the gun in the video.

Could also be that it is difficult to use someone both as a witness and as a suspect at the same time. Prosecutors would want him to testify but if he testifies that could be used against him in his own trial so to clear up that they may have struck a cooperation deal where he doesn't get prosecuted if he cooperates with the trial.

He admitted he had a gun IIRC. If not, then im wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Batman and Robin! 

Or maybe Bluntman and Chronic. . .

Remind me again.  It was Asshole #1 and Skaterboy that didn't survive, but Bicepguy did?

I believe so.  The Joker (Asshole#1) and Batman (Skaterboy) are no longer productive members of society.

Robin (Bicep guy) is still with us but can't play with his boto anymore......(He can start training the other arm.)

Still my opinion that Rittenhouse, asshole #1 and Batman and Robin (#2 and #3) shouldn't have been out there in the first place.

Peaceful protest?  Yes.  By all means.

Any other reason to be out there is wrong.  My opinion:  All 4 of them had no intentions for peaceful protest.

I have to disagree.  The night before, a 70 year old man was bludgeoned with a rock while he attempted to fight the fire that was set in his business.

Kyle was out to help protect the law abiding business owners who were trying to protect their businesses from looters, vandals and arsonists.

I wish he'd been there to help defend against the person hitting a 70 yr old with a rock.

You said the first guy had no justification.

Is there any scenario in which the 2nd and 3rd assailants' violence could be justified -- I mean legally.

If #1 attacks Kyle, and Kyle is now running down the street, and 2 others join in the chase, what was their justification? 

#2 and #3 didn't know why #1 was chasing Kyle.  #1 could have told them anything to get them to join him.  Becoming a vigilante as part of a 3 person posse without witnessing Kyle do anything wrong will never be justification for #2 & #3..

It was probably the result of mob mentality, where #2 & #3 just followed the leader.  No rhyme or reason to their actions.  That can't be the justification you speak of.

From my recollections, the video pretty clearly shows a justified shooting of the 1st guy.

Now as for #2 and #3, what did they know when they were chasing Rittenhouse? Did they observe what constituted a justifiable self defense shooting or did they hear the gun shot then turn and see someone shot with Rittenhouse running away and people pointing at him? If they didn't see what happened and only heard what people were yelling they may have thought this was a murder suspect trying to escape and tried to be good samaritans. I doubt that is the case but that is the case that #3 could try to make since he survived the shooting. I suspect you are right and that there wasn't a lot of thought but just an instinctual reaction.

The one problem with that angle is that Rittenhouse can't be judged for the misconceptions #2 and #3 had. So even if #2 and #3 were trying to be heroes, Rittenhouse is judged by why he did what he did when he shot them.  Rittenhouse couldn't know what they were thinking, couldn't know how much they knew, he only knew that they were attacking him as he was retreating. If #3 were on trial for attacking Rittenhouse then this argument might have more weight.

This kind of touches on the risks of being a good samaritan because you better make sure a crime has occurred and that you are stopping the right person.

It works against the prosecution, though -- to not charge him.

If it appears that "witness" got a walk in exchange for his testimony, his credibility is in question.  Is he lying to keep himself out of prison?

That is true, but I know that this sort of thing does happen. Flip the small fish to get to the big fish. If your only witness to a murder was a shoplifting suspect you can bet the witness will get some sort of a good plea deal. Not necessarily walking completely but maybe a deferred judgement or something.

Honestly, I don't know how courts deal with the credibility issue that is raised. Maybe they figure the risk of perjury is enough to discourage them from testifying falsely? It is a good question.