they need to cross state lines to kill more unarmed people protesting against authoritarianism
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
News
28243 readers
4464 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
unarmed people protesting against authoritarianism
https://youtu.be/Bv21bE9PWtE?t=10366
"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at [Rittenhouse] — advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?" the defense said.
"Correct," Grosskreutz replied.
And the guy he actually killed had a skateboard! The other guy literally just had a bag (lol dumbass).
See this is what's so great. Circumstances don't actually matter, you can go looking for blood equipped with a weapons meant to kill as many people as fast as possible, and as long as someone flinches, you can just murder them! It's completely legal. I fucking love america.
Let me preface this with: Rittenhouse is a shithead and his politics are shit. But: have you watched the videos? If you've got a gun and someone tries to grapple with you, that is now a life or death situation. If you let them take your gun, you could very well be dead. It's not a surprise that the jury acquitted him. Both shootings were demonstrably self-defense. I'm sick of us lefties falling for the same type of knee-jerk propagandistic nonsense the right always falls for.
And the guy he actually killed had a skateboard!
Yeah, try to minimize this after you let someone whack you on the head full swing with a skateboard--that is, if you survive. They weigh over 10 pounds on average, did you know that? Very literally a potentially lethal weapon. Also, he actually WAS hit by a full swing of said skateboard, on the head, before he shot at that guy, who was clearly trying to kill him by doing so.
you can go looking for blood
Every single action he took in Kenosha directly contradicts this, lol.
and as long as someone flinches
Trying to kill someone is not a "flinch". This is some absurd fantasizing you're doing.
Everyone shot by Rittenhouse was actively in the act of attempting to kill him at the moment they were shot. The first LITERALLY screamed "I'm going to kill you", and after chasing him down, tried to wrestle his rifle out of his hands (gee, wonder what he might want to do with it if he got a hold of it?). The second tried to cave his skull in with a heavy, blunt object. And the third was only shot after he pointed his handgun at him--luckily, Rittenhouse was able to react fast enough to stop him.
In not familiar with exactly what happened that night but just an uneducated guess:
All of the threats that Kyle encountered was in response to the fact that he was playing Timmy Toughguy and actively strolling around with a gun...
If he was just wandering around being an unarmed cunt then the chance of being swung at is still not zero but pretty damn close to it.
If at any point he ran - and kept running, or dropped the gun and ran, fully retreating from the crowd I doubt he would have been chased too far and the need to shoot would have been eliminated
In the same way he (correctly) saw others as a threat, the primary reason he was being threatened was because everyone else saw a random civilian with an assault rifle that was a 50x larger threat well before they threatened him. Even if he intended to do nothing with it, he knew he was sending a threatening message just being there with it and he then seemed shocked when people started responding to that threat - of course they would try and disarm him at a bare minimum.
The threat to Kyle at this point was genuinely high because most adults in the US - or anywhere - instantly recognise what a random civilian in public with an assault rifle means - mass shooting. This is exactly the message Kyle intended to send in order to scare rioters off. If he wasn't there just to scare people off then he was there to actively murder people. At this point I could put it down to a dumb kid making a really stupid mistake. Maybe worth a few years in jail for gun charges or inciting violence?
But he didn't retreat as he was being threatened - a fraction of what he was threatening others. He chose to attack instead and it's at this point he deserves to spend the rest of his days rotting in jail. He tried to send a message, that message wasn't received so he murdered those who were fearing for, and attempting to protect their own lives.
Kyle choose to be the aggressor - and much greater threat to anyone there - from the start. He wasn't protecting his own family, house or neighbourhood, he crossed state lines to be an aggressor. Kyle continued to act as the aggressor at every stage of the encounter.
Fuck Kyle.
This is a lot of words to say that you don't understand that nobody freaks out about someone open carrying in a state where open carry is legal.
No one felt threatened by his presence. No one reacted to him showing up. No one had any problem with him walking around doing his thing for hours, while the rifle was strapped to him the whole time. If him merely existing with a rifle on him was such a threat, why is that? How come no one gave a shit about him except for a crazy guy who set a fire that Kyle put out?
Funny how this question never gets an answer, because there's no way to answer it honestly without piercing a massive hole in your argument.
Pfft , so if he didn't kill everyone that night, obviously the people he victimized were the only ones who had any issues with him open carrying. Looks like someone is projecting massive argument holes.
the primary reason he was being threatened was because everyone else saw a random civilian with an assault rifle
This is simply objectively bullshit, and you obviously don't live in an open carry state. Nobody gave a shit about his rifle. There is video of him walking around, rifle in plain view, and nobody is even giving him a second glance.
he knew he was sending a threatening message just being there with it
More bullshit--even if he was trying to 'send a threatening message', he clearly failed, see referenced video above
he then seemed shocked when people started responding to that threat
Another lie. NOBODY "responded" to him being armed. He was attacked by a maniac for putting out the dumpster fire said maniac set. Had literally nothing to do with his rifle. And that attack is what caused the two other idiots to try to kill Rittenhouse, and in turn reap the consequences.
Your delusion that he was this menacing, threatening presence just by existing in Kenosha while having a rifle strapped to him is pure fantasy, period.
I don't care. The fact that you want to defend him says it all.
You've established pretty unambiguously that you don't care what the facts are. You've got your narrative, and you're gonna cling to it with both hands, inconvenient truths be damned.
That's not a virtue, you know. But defending the truth against lies, even if they are lies about your enemy, is. You should consider it.
Defending pieces of shit is not a virtue. It would be a vice actually, you hypocrite.
Rittenhouse is an idiot who shouldn't have crossed state lines to go play police officer in another state. I have no problem that his life has been ruined, and if he had been convicted, I wouldn't have shed a tear. Not to mention he is a fucking twat (if what the sister says is true) for not helping them out considering it was his stupidity that put this crosshair on their back. So make no mistake about where I stand on this. The guy is an idiot, but I don't think he was "looking for blood."
That being said, the guy didn't just "have a skateboard" we have a video of him chasing a fleeing rittenhouse and attacking him with the skateboard and trying to grab the gun. The other guy is seen chasing a fleeing Rittenhouse when he turns and shoots. Neither of these people just "flinched." They were both clearly aggressors.
Was he justified in shooting them? I'm not so sure. I tend to lean towards "no." But the fact that you're grossly misinterpreting what actually happened leads me to believe that you are not so sure either. One who is confident that the facts support claim doesn't feel the need to grossly misrepresent the facts.
The guy is an idiot, but I don't think he was "looking for blood."
Except that there's a recording of him saying he wanted to shoot people
Huh. Have any of them considered a job? If the mom was capable of driving her child to another state to murder some people, I bet she could drive for uber or something. Or be a getaway driver for other criminals, idk.
If the mom was capable of driving her child to another state
She didn't do that.
It's really sad how many people are still so completely ignorant of even the simplest facts of that case. Whatever your ideology declared was the truth, you just swallowed, facts and truth be damned.
Pitiful.
P.S. Self-defense isn't murder.
P.S. Self-defense isn't murder.
What Kyle did wasn't self defense. I don't give a damn what the court said, he went looking for trouble with a gun in his hand.
If a black guy knowingly strolled through a KKK meeting, without saying or doing anything other than walking, and defended himself if one of them attacked him, would you argue he gave up the right to defend himself?
That's not how it works, goofball.
It's not bear season, and a hunter doesn't have a hunting license. He takes his gun and drives out to bear country, and starts walking around bear dens waiting for a mother bear to attack him, then he shoots her and claims self defense.
Was he justified, or did he intentionally set up a scenario where the bear was likely to feel threatened and attack him, so he'd have an excuse to shoot her?
The fact that no one gave the slightest shit about Rittenhouse's arrival or presence (regardless of the fact that he was visibly and obviously armed) until Rosenbaum freaked out on him for putting out Rosenbaum's dumpster fire, makes that not really the best analogy, lol.
He did literally nothing that merited the aggression upon him. Your argument is literally identical, logically, to "she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively".
Your argument is literally identical, logically, to “she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively”.
It's literally identical, logically, to "She dressed provocatively, but was carrying a revolver, and walked into a bad part of town waiting for someone to come onto her so she could shoot them." In which case I'd be making the same argument.
Look, I want to be clear: I'm not saying he deserved to get attacked. But I also don't believe for a second that he traveled that far, to a protest where any logical person could have guessed they'd be seen as an aggressor, and walked around for as long as he did, and wasn't hoping he'd draw some aggression so he could "defend himself". It's unfortunate that it happened, and I do believe he was defending himself, but I also fully believe that it went down exactly like he was hoping it would.
The fact that he's been riding out his celebrity status among the far right since then, I feel, supports that theory.
He can be "not guilty" and still be a piece of shit.
“She dressed provocatively, but was carrying a revolver, and walked into a bad part of town waiting for someone to come onto her so she could shoot them.” In which case I’d be making the same argument.
I like how you subtly modified the obviously implied rape attempt to "come onto her", lol.
You also left out running away at the first sign of aggression, and then only shooting after she's chased down and has nowhere else to go, and the attacker, who screamed "I'm going to kill you" moments before, is now trying to wrestle the gun out of her hands.
Zero chance you'd be making the same argument in an actually equivalent situation, lmao, who do you think you're kidding?
Man, you're missing the whole point. I said it in pretty plain text before but I'll say it again: I don't believe he deserved to get attacked, and I believe he was defending himself. Clearly the person who attacked him were not justified in doing so. In the analogy you're quoting, clearly the person attempting to rape the woman in question would not be justified in doing so, and she'd be justified in shooting him.
What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she'd get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone. I firmly believe Rittenhouse did the exact same.
Do you also defend Westborough Baptist Church? Remember them? Group who would protest at soldier's funerals, shout some really inflammatory shit with the intent of baiting the funeral-goers to attack them, then act like innocent victims and sue their attackers? Legally, they were in the right, too, but that doesn't make them any less deplorable for doing it.
What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone. I firmly believe Rittenhouse did the exact same.
But the point is that there is literally no reason to believe that, if you're actually being objective, and looking at the facts of the matter. He cleaned graffiti off a high school, then he showed up, he handed out water bottles, gave basic medical attention on request (literally walking around yelling "medic! friendly!"), and put out fires. He did nothing that any reasonable, objective person would conclude contributed the slightest bit toward 'hoping he'd get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone'.
Firstly, everything started going south because of an event nobody could have predicted: a guy who set a fire earlier had it put out by Rittenhouse, and his response to that is literal homicidal rage (?!) (later, we learned that he had literally been released from a mental health facility for a suicide attempt...looking at all the evidence and in hindsight, I think it's reasonable that Rosenbaum was actually trying to get himself killed in a manner similar to 'murder by cop', but I digress).
Secondly, if he was hoping to get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone, why didn't he shoot Rosenbaum right when he started chasing him down? This was already after Rosenbaum had literally been screaming "I'm going to kill you", so it'd be a very strong self-defense argument to put him down right there as he charged at Rittenhouse. But instead, he ran away, and continued to run away as Rosenbaum chased him. This course of action makes NO SENSE for someone who is 'hoping he'd get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone'.
He also didn't shoot when he got cornered and was no longer able to flee. At that point, Rosenbaum had not only threatened his life, but had chased him down, leaving NO question he was intending to make good on his threat. Rittenhouse could have very justifiably shot him dead then as well. But he didn't.
Rittenhouse only fired when Rosenbaum had COMPLETELY closed the distance between them, and was LITERALLY trying to wrestle the gun of someone he had just threatened to kill, out of his arms. Objectively speaking, he did everything he could to keep the situation from escalating to the point of using his weapon.
His actions toward his other two attackers was similar--no aggression from him, and when he encountered aggression toward him, he didn't 'take advantage of the opportunity to shoot someone'--instead, he fled. Consistently. Every single person he shot had literally put him in a position where he had to choose to either protect his life, or forfeit it. And he never used his weapon a moment before he was in that position, all three times.
The argument that Rittenhouse was 'hoping he’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone' simply does not hold water.
First off, I want to be clear that I'm not the one down-voting you; I haven't voted (up or down) anywhere in this thread, but it always makes me self-conscious when I'm having a disagreement with someone and the posts I'm replying to consistently have 1 downvote at the time I'm replying.
- Rittenhouse was already breaking the law by having a firearm; he was 17 at the time and not legally old enough to possess one.
- He claims he went to the protest "to protect businesses" if I recall, which seems reasonable on the surface, except that:
- He was a staunch supporter of the 'blue lives matter' movement, a rally-attending Trump supporter, and otherwise very openly far-right leaning, and...
- He was attending a protest populated primarily by far left-leaning individuals.
- I'm not aware of him attending any other protests, since or prior, under this premise; if he was the good Samaritan he tries to make himself out to be, why did he choose this, and only this, protest to "protect businesses" at? Where was he during any non-politically-polarized national tragedy where his services could have been used?
- Why did he feel the need to bring a gun in the first place?
- You could argue that it's "just in case" - which may make sense, except that he drove an awfully long way to a very specific protest with a very specific population that had already become very heated. If he felt he needed a gun "just in case", a reasonable conclusion could be that he expected things to go south, and chose to go anyway.
- He (to my knowledge) didn't have any personal affiliation with any of the businesses there.
- This is like me going down to the local Walmart with a gun to protect it against people protesting big box stores.
- Since the incident, he's used the fact that he went to a leftist protest and shot people and was acquitted to become a bit of a far-right celebrity, and he's really milked that celebrity status:
- His likeness has been used to sell memorabilia, including guns.
- He's been a guest of honor (or equivalent, I'm not sure what the term is) at GOP rallies.
- He's got at least some kind of association with the Proud Boys (though I'm not sure what the nature of that association is.)
- If he was truly an innocent good Samaritan who was caught up in something unfortunate and regretted what happened, wouldn't he be speaking out against any of this, rather than letting them hold him in high regard because of it?
- He's basically earned celebrity status because he shot people. And I realize it's not his fault that people are doing that, but he's playing right into it. Profiting off of it, even. That is not something a remorseful person does.
The result of all of this, in my eyes, is that he went to an awful lot of trouble to put himself in a situation where I feel a reasonable person would have believed they would end up in an altercation, and he made sure he had a rifle with him at the time. I will accept that he could have used it sooner than he did, but I, as someone who actively does not want to have to shoot someone, wouldn't bring a gun to a Trump rally while publicizing that I was there to keep the peace and enforce local noise ordinances. That'd just be asking to get attacked. To be put in a situation where I'd need to use that gun.
Of course, if I was going to go to that rally, and I was hoping I'd have to shoot someone, I'd make damn sure I made it look like I had only the best possible intentions.
It's not me, you're literally the only one I'm actually having some sort of actual dialogue with.
Rittenhouse was already breaking the law by having a firearm; he was 17 at the time and not legally old enough to possess one.
Not true--Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
He was a staunch supporter of the ‘blue lives matter’ movement, a rally-attending Trump supporter, and otherwise very openly far-right leaning, and… He was attending a protest populated primarily by far left-leaning individuals.
And yet, he didn't do a single second of counter-protesting, nor did he act to inhibit the protesters in any way--in fact, it was primarily protesters who received his handed out bottles of water and basic medical aid.
The only real argument you can make that he was antagonistic is if you argue that cleaning up after and putting out the fires of rioters (those not protesting, but just running around creating havoc and destruction) is antagonistic toward them--I guess it is, technically, but...I mean, come on. No way my conscience would let me fault someone for undoing rioters' damage.
He is on record stating he supports BLM, for what it's worth.
I’m not aware of him attending any other protests, since or prior, under this premise; if he was the good Samaritan he tries to make himself out to be, why did he choose this, and only this, protest to “protect businesses” at?
Because it's his community, so it makes perfect sense he's more compelled to take action in his own neighborhood. He has friends in Kenosha, his father lives there, he worked as a lifeguard there, etc.. He had spent lots of time over the course of his life in that area, and had ties to it. If he had gone to one protest, and it deliberately WASN'T the one in Kenosha, that's what would look potentially suspicious, imo.
Why did he feel the need to bring a gun in the first place? You could argue that it’s “just in case”
Seems pretty obvious that is the reason--he's even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, "for my protection".
- which may make sense, except that he drove an awfully long way
Not really a long way at all (20 miles), especially not unusually long for him, who had made that exact trip countless times before. This was literally his regular commute to his lifeguard job, and spending time with his father, etc.
a reasonable conclusion could be that he expected things to go south, and chose to go anyway.
And if one isn't starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.
He (to my knowledge) didn’t have any personal affiliation with any of the businesses there.
Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black's offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.
Since the incident, he’s used the fact that he went to a leftist protest and shot people and was acquitted to become a bit of a far-right celebrity,
All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It's no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren't doing that. Wouldn't be nearly the first time such a thing has happened, sadly.
Still, this is beside the point--it doesn't matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views. All I'm talking about is what I know about, and that's the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)--as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a 'random' civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.
I speak from a position of knowing the facts, and being frustrated that, even though the facts are so readily available, there are still so many people saying things the facts don't agree with, and drawing conclusions that make zero sense in the face of said facts.
That's all there is to it.
Not true–Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
Maybe I'm mis-remembering the details of the case, as this isn't really something I've paid much attention to in the past, I don't know, 3 years, but I'm fairly certain the person who obtained the gun for him was charged and convicted with some crime; is it a crime to give a gun to a minor but not for the minor to possess one? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Is it that it's illegal in Illinois to possess one, but not in Wisconsin? My understanding was that the gun charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed basically on a technicality using language that was written to apply to hunting rifles and was being applied to a rifle clearly not intended for that purpose. Maybe that's the short-barreled clause? I'm not sure of the specifics.
Seems pretty obvious that is the reason–he’s even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, “for my protection”.
And if one isn’t starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.
I don't know what the local culture is like in Wisconsin, so some of my view might stem from trying to view it through the lens of my local community, but I know I, for one, am immediately on edge when I see someone walking around open-carrying a firearm in a public place. It doesn't happen frequently, so maybe that's part of it, but if I attended a protest or demonstration, particularly one that the police are antagonistic to, anyone - no matter what they're doing - who is carrying a gun like that is, in my mind, making the situation worse just by their presence. If they're a protester themselves, they're just inviting police violence and if they're not a protester, my perception would be that they're doing it with the intent to intimidate. Maybe that's an incorrect perception and I am willing to accept that, but I can't imagine that there weren't plenty of people there who share that perception.
What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all it'd take is one who didn't to cause a problem.
There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I can't speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.
Not really a long way at all (20 miles),
Maybe 'a long way' was poor wording but the point I was trying to get at is that he doesn't live there; it's not like this was happening in his town.
Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black’s offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.
I was only aware of the first part of this - that they denied knowing or wanting him there, so if the rest of this is true, I will concede this point.
Still, this is beside the point–it doesn’t matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views.
It's relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there. I'm not calling him a white supremacist (nor am I calling him not a white supremacist, I really don't know what his views are on that topic, nor do I really care), and I'm certainly not calling him a serial killer. I think it's pretty clear from the trial that he isn't legally guilty. However, I do think he's morally guilty because he put himself in a situation where, in my view, a reasonable person should have been able to foresee that something like this might happen. Then, afterwards, rather than condemning the glorification of it, he just went along with it, hook, line and sinker.
Honestly, if it hadn't been for that last bit, I'd probably hold a different view, and...
All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It’s no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren’t doing that.
Maybe you're right, and he's a product of the circumstances, but he didn't, and doesn't (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there. He's going along with (at the very least) the glorification of his actions, and I cannot see him as anything but in the wrong as a result.
I will say that you make some compelling points and maybe my initial stance was too severe - that is to say, maybe he wasn't literally looking for trouble, but he certainly wasn't taking what I see as some very basic steps to avoid trouble.
All I’m talking about is what I know about, and that’s the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)–as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a ‘random’ civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.
The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit; I don't think it's surprising at all that everyone's perception of the details differ so greatly. The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.
not reading this (fully) so ignore me if you already mentioned this, but the during the rittenhouse trial both charges against rittenhouse and the person that sold him the gun were dropped, rittenhouse i think specifically because of a loophole that made it "technically legal to own" and the person that sold him the gun, because reasons, i guess, i don't remember.
More than likely persecution was focusing on the other charges and didnt want to spend time on these charges as they seemed rather inconsequential, as well as the fact that the other kid was out of state, and so iirc that was a separate case entirely.
regardless he should've been charged with at the very least, reckless endangerment. The fact that he wasn't hit with that charge is an absolute fluke of legal work.
