NBA games postponed today p14 Players decide to resume Playoffs

[dougthonus]

I am saying that policing should be better equipped with Scenario Analysis.

I think that is fine, and I agree this is a good idea.

In this exact scenario, I think an arrest attempt should have been made, and if I was in a similar scenario where I called 911 then my expectation and hope would be that an arrest attempt would be made. I don't think a scenario analysis would yield a result of letting someone with felony warrants out that is causing a disturbance leading to a 911 call results in a "let this person drive away" result as the best course of action.

[dougthonus]

Why are we all acting like the police at the scene had no access to Blake's record before undertaking the actions that they did? Facial recognition software is more available and affordable than ever, and the GF may have easily dropped his name on the 911 call. It's extremely likely the LEOs at the scene knew exactly who he was.

I thought it was factually confirmed on the 911 calls that they knew who he was and had an arrest warrant out for him? Is anyone disputing this topic?

[musiqsoulchild]

I am saying that policing should be better equipped with Scenario Analysis.

I think that is fine, and I agree this is a good idea.

In this exact scenario, I think an arrest attempt should have been made, and if I was in a similar scenario where I called 911 then my expectation and hope would be that an arrest attempt would be made. I don't think a scenario analysis would yield a result of letting someone with felony warrants out that is causing a disturbance leading to a 911 call results in a "let this person drive away" result as the best course of action.

Doug, I said that depending on the situation you leave someone at the callers home for protection.

I am not talking months.

A few hours at most before the arrest happens. In some extreme cases, a day or two.

Most times the above is not even the MO. Most times, de-escalation on the scene should be the MO.

[musiqsoulchild]

It's also very instructional if researchers can do qualitative studies on cops who were present at a shooting BUT dont draw a gun.

I think there is a LOT to learn from that and implement into police practice.

The FOC will not allow such a study though.

[League Circles]

They can apprehend him later when he is by himself.

After he has dropped off his kids.

Just a tap on the door in plain clothes. And a quick arrest.

You know what helps with assessing those kinds of situations? Community inputs.

Which are solely lacking now in present day policing.

See I think when someone is potentially facing many years in prison and is known to be a violent offender the last thing on Earth you want to do is let them get into a situation where they have the opportunity and the motive to hold their own children hostage. I mean this guy had already been evading a violent felony arrest warrant for like 7 weeks. this interaction with the police was an enormous notice to him that they had found him. He was definitely liable to do anything to continue to secure his freedom. These are the types of situations where people can kill their own children and I am not exaggerating. he lost the benefit of the doubt that he would comply when he evaded felony arrest for 7 weeks and then continued to return to try to abuse his victim further.

I answered Doug's post as both your posts were along the same lines.

Heres my quick answer to you in addition to what I wrote in response to Doug's post:

A violent criminal is NOT always a violent criminal.


They order food
They go to Church
They go to the grocery store
They do regular ****

A cop is a cop. Until his shift ends.

That's how you pick them up. When the criminal is NOT being a violent criminal and being a regular civilian and when you're still a cop.

I think you are letting your valid general points bring you to a very flawed conclusion about the specific case. the entire reason he wasn't picked up for 7 weeks is that cops do not have the resources to simply follow people forever until a convenient moment when it's most likely that they won't be violent. but the more important point is that in the interim the offender can continue to victimize society as it appears he was doing before his victim called 911 in this case. That's why you get them right away. So they can't rape or kill more people. Full stop.

[League Circles]

Why are we all acting like the police at the scene had no access to Blake's record before undertaking the actions that they did? Facial recognition software is more available and affordable than ever, and the GF may have easily dropped his name on the 911 call. It's extremely likely the LEOs at the scene knew exactly who he was.

I thought it was factually confirmed on the 911 calls that they knew who he was and had an arrest warrant out for him? Is anyone disputing this topic?

this is definitely my firm understanding as well. I'm not sure where I read it but I think that has been made clear.

[musiqsoulchild]

See I think when someone is potentially facing many years in prison and is known to be a violent offender the last thing on Earth you want to do is let them get into a situation where they have the opportunity and the motive to hold their own children hostage. I mean this guy had already been evading a violent felony arrest warrant for like 7 weeks. this interaction with the police was an enormous notice to him that they had found him. He was definitely liable to do anything to continue to secure his freedom. These are the types of situations where people can kill their own children and I am not exaggerating. he lost the benefit of the doubt that he would comply when he evaded felony arrest for 7 weeks and then continued to return to try to abuse his victim further.

I answered Doug's post as both your posts were along the same lines.

Heres my quick answer to you in addition to what I wrote in response to Doug's post:

A violent criminal is NOT always a violent criminal.


They order food
They go to Church
They go to the grocery store
They do regular ****

A cop is a cop. Until his shift ends.

That's how you pick them up. When the criminal is NOT being a violent criminal and being a regular civilian and when you're still a cop.

I think you are letting your valid general points bring you to a very flawed conclusion about the specific case. the entire reason he wasn't picked up for 7 weeks is that cops do not have the resources to simply follow people forever until a convenient moment when it's most likely that they won't be violent. but the more important point is that in the interim the offender can continue to victimize society as it appears he was doing before his victim called 911 in this case. That's why you get them right away. So they can't rape or kill more people. Full stop.

In the interim, is not an argument that we should be having.

All criminals / terrorists in their past could have been taken down by an Armed Forces or a Cop before they became even bigger criminals.

Leave that alone for a second.

Focus on the resources.

That's why Defund the Polics is a Non-Starter for me.

And Biden is actually advocating to INCREASE funding and use it to get Cops more resources.

I am ALL about that.

[MrSparkle]

While I agree police needs reform, I wish BLM was also talking about K-12 education reform. Long post but as a part-time educator here's my out-the-box but feasible idea for Chicago:

Education: Sounds crazy but I think there needs to be more incentive to work. I think the traditional idea of sending kids to school for 8 hours a day and having them listen to lectures, it needs to end, and we need to go to a more Eastern/old-school style of pay-your-dues-to-learn. OK- I don't mean like some sort of repressive totalitarian dystopian society. But I do mean, bring trade skills back to schools. Wood-working, auto repair, building mini homes, sowing clothes, cooking, plumbing, landscaping/gardening - these are actually really high-value skills. I seriously think that there should be training programs with certificates that 14-18 year olds can apply for, and if they get them, I think they should be allowed to earn a good wage building furniture, fixing cars, sheds and shacks, etc. - and they should actually apply for the job with a resume based on their training grades. Leave it at part-time (20hr max). Call me absolutely insane, but that puts money in kids' pockets in a safe vetted job with skills they are interested in that the community needs. If a job is less coveted, making the pay higher.

Throw in computer programming, research (geology, biology), available for very ambitious kids - there's a lot of grunt work in those fields. Make high school more career-oriented instead of general education. The traditional school is not working. If you are an aspiring musician, have programs to record jingles and records, provide background music at lunch-time for fellow students, play at assemblies and recess. And get paid. Yes - get paid for your service as 14-18yo.

Seriously- I know it sounds absurd, but I don't think it is. Your tax dollars would literally be getting diverted back into students' hands. And it would be a competitive and incentive based program, so you're not just throwing a flat $15 wage towards kids who slack.

Now, I realize this sounds like a recipe for disaster (having kids with $500-1000 of disposable income a month.. aka drugs...), but the parallel thing you do, you also make financial planning a total normal part of the curriculum. So you start talking about retirement savings, paying for college, investment (whose eyes don't light up when you talk about putting money in an account and making more money without doing anything). And make this business curriculum a pretty big part of it all, so that kids are getting educated on how to use their money, not just spending it at the convenience store and on weed (or worse). Also, yes - government taxes these student salaries.

Meanwhile, you still have science, math, English and social studies class, but you don't have them 1-2 hours every day. You integrate them into these other classes, and for the short attention-spans, you make the math/science classes more like 15-30 minute hyper focused lessons.

IMO you really need to get the economic and educational wheels moving. As a part-time teacher, I've seen how both wealthy and low-income districts work. Rich kids are set-up for financial success from their parents, not just with a direct credit line, but also just in terms of learning how to work, save money. How many black kids get to caddy for golfing executives during high school? I guess MJ's kids.

I know this all sounds insane, but I can't think of any reason not to get experimental right now with education. It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights act and southside Chicago is still in educational and economic decline. And it's Latino and mixed neighborhoods too. Also you could consider scrapping or severely cutting welfare for families with many kids, because all kids past 14yo can start earning that money.

Now the reason I say all this, is because there is a large percentage of broken parenting. And I don't think it's intentional or malicious, but rather helpless, ignorant, or PTSD. And I know CPS/public school does its best, but just have hundreds of thousands of kids COMPLETELY WASTING about 80% of their weeks for 6-8 crucial years of their life. And then you have a lot of kids getting jobs at McDonalds or hustle-jobs to make money, which does nothing for their career resume.

So it's no surprise that gangs and petty crimes comprise a big part of life. Those seriously are amongst the most appealing things to do in the hood if you don't have great sports or music skills. And then, the aspiring athletes and musicians aren't exactly making money either, they're working hard for a lotto ticket to success.

I know at the moment police brutality is being addressed, and it should be, but it's also clearly getting murky as the nuances of "How could've the cop handled that really tense situation?" can be debated endlessly with no practical resolution.

Yes - police around the country need reform. I think it's probably good that Minneapolis saw a top-down re-build. We'll see if it really is better in 5-10 years. It didn't hurt to try. IMO, CPD doesn't need a total rebuild, and this city has been ahead of police reform because of the tragic Laquan McDonald case that was tried 2 years ago. But as a whole , the Southside of this city needs like a 180 reform in educational and economic policy, and the answer can not continue being to gentrify and displace.

At least locally, in Chicago right now (and Portland), IMO it's swung in the other direction and things aren't making sense anymore. My friend's partner is a young black man and he has white BLM protestors run up to him with both middle fingers up screaming "Don't you hate yourself!!??" We're in a moment of hysteria. To bring it full circle, at the moment crime isn't happening because of the police. Like, that idea doesn't make any sense. At this point, they are accidents happening at the scenes of crimes; maybe they're petty, but you can't shut your eyes and pretend it's a picnic.

You can put all your eggs into this police brutality basket, but it's been a pretty loud message for 5 months straight. It was right to bring it up, and the pressure should continue to reform it around the country. But Chicago and Portland for example, two hot spots, it is now time to integrate the other pressing issues (education, poverty and why are so many young black men even put in the situation of breaking the law). I'm afraid we're not hearing comprehensive or appealing solutions to those problems. Lot of energy is being burnt IMO. Reminds me of the 1% Wall St movement - great idea, started well, went on for a while and became a big deal. Then what? It was an esoteric concept of rich people controlling too much wealth with no practical plan in place - since then, the income disparity has grown much greater.

[HomoSapien]

Boy, I'm not sure if I can agree with this. There's something so strange to me about driving to a different state, with a gun, to protect a business you have no association with. If you're taking those steps, it seems like you're actively looking for trouble. For what it's worth, there is a video trending on Twitter right now of Rittenhouse punching a girl (I'm not sure if it's been verified as true, but I believe he's wearing USA shoes that he's been seen wearing in other photos). Also, it's worth noting that this confrontation allegedly began because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people in cars, demanding they get out. There's also an article on Vice about how his classmates feared that he'd become a school shooter. I'm not getting a good kid vibe that some are trying to sell right now.

Regardless, I think one of the things that strikes me most is that this is a kid (and he really looks like one) walking around with a gun. It just goes to show you how people are really becoming radicalized. This isn't normal, but we're probably going to start seeing more of this sort of self-policing.

Your description of Rittenhouse seems filled with the problems and character assassination that is commonly used against black people when they are victimized but turn out to have a criminal record in the past. I completely agree that this kid may have wanted to find trouble and purposefully put himself in a situation where he was going to find it, but it's irrelevant to the situation once it unfolds. Much like its totally irrelevant that Floyd had a previous criminal record and meth in his system, it doesn't make it okay to choke him to death by kneeling on his neck for 8 minutes.

Whoa, wait a second now. This is no where near similar to a George Floyd situation or any other countless example of a black person who was killed by police brutality for a reason that had nothing to do with past legal troubles. Rittenhouse purposely sought out this situation. His past is absolutely relevant in this case, because it can help determine (not us, but in court) what exactly this guy’s intentions are especially if he fits the profile of a violent psychopath.

[dougthonus]

Doug, I said that depending on the situation you leave someone at the callers home for protection.

I am not talking months.

A few hours at most before the arrest happens. In some extreme cases, a day or two.

Most times the above is not even the MO. Most times, de-escalation on the scene should be the MO.

We can agree to disagree here.

I think if you arrive at a scene when 911 is called on someone whom has a felony arrest warrant the MO is to attempt to arrest the person and should be to attempt to arrest the person.

In this case, from what I know of the scene, it did not appear to require de-escalation until Blake resists arrest and fails to comply with officer commands, and presumably arms himself.

[Susan]

Boy, I'm not sure if I can agree with this. There's something so strange to me about driving to a different state, with a gun, to protect a business you have no association with. If you're taking those steps, it seems like you're actively looking for trouble. For what it's worth, there is a video trending on Twitter right now of Rittenhouse punching a girl (I'm not sure if it's been verified as true, but I believe he's wearing USA shoes that he's been seen wearing in other photos). Also, it's worth noting that this confrontation allegedly began because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people in cars, demanding they get out. There's also an article on Vice about how his classmates feared that he'd become a school shooter. I'm not getting a good kid vibe that some are trying to sell right now.

Regardless, I think one of the things that strikes me most is that this is a kid (and he really looks like one) walking around with a gun. It just goes to show you how people are really becoming radicalized. This isn't normal, but we're probably going to start seeing more of this sort of self-policing.

Your description of Rittenhouse seems filled with the problems and character assassination that is commonly used against black people when they are victimized but turn out to have a criminal record in the past. I completely agree that this kid may have wanted to find trouble and purposefully put himself in a situation where he was going to find it, but it's irrelevant to the situation once it unfolds. Much like its totally irrelevant that Floyd had a previous criminal record and meth in his system, it doesn't make it okay to choke him to death by kneeling on his neck for 8 minutes.

Whoa, wait a second now. This is no where near similar to a George Floyd situation or any other countless example of a black person who was killed by police brutality for a reason that had nothing to do with past legal troubles. Rittenhouse purposely sought out this situation. His past is absolutely relevant in this case, because it can help determine (not us, but in court) what exactly this guy’s intentions are especially if he fits the profile of a violent psychopath.

Rittenhouse KILLED two people.

His history is 100% relevant.

He wasn't victim of police brutality, he was an idiot who murdered people. Jesus this thread is **** depressing.

[dougthonus]

Whoa, wait a second now. This is no where near similar to a George Floyd situation or any other countless example of a black person who was killed by police brutality for a reason that had nothing to do with past legal troubles. Rittenhouse purposely sought out this situation.

If the reverse situation happened and a black protester shot three white people after repeatedly trying to run away and flee and after those people chased him, attacked him, and had numbers of force against him, and had him on his back with no possibility of escape, would you bring up his (not even criminal but hearsay sketchy) past?

That fictional black protester put himself in that situation and choose to be there, just like Rittenhouse by showing up that night.

I do not think you would bring up such details in this situation. Instead, I think you would say this black protester was defending himself from crazy white racists and did everything he could to avoid shooting someone (which would be totally true). I think if someone else brought up his past the way you just did that you would accuse them of outright racism and say their view was ridiculous (which it would be).

His past is absolutely relevant in this case, because it can help determine (not us, but in court) what exactly this guy’s intentions are especially if he fits the profile of a violent psychopath.

This isn't a situation where we don't know what happened and have to piece together different people's accounts of what happened and have to try to figure out his intention by guessing as to his character and conflicting reports.

You can literally go watch the video and see that when he fired his life was in obvious mortal peril and that he did not fire indiscriminately or go on some psychopathic rage killing spree.

Even if for some reason he is a violent psychopath under some other circumstances, which even mentioning is no different than describing Floyd as a violent criminal under different circumstances, you can watch the video and see that he was not a violent psychopath this night. He repeatedly fled the situation and only fired when he had reason to believe his life was at risk and fired a very limited number of shots.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Your description of Rittenhouse seems filled with the problems and character assassination that is commonly used against black people when they are victimized but turn out to have a criminal record in the past. I completely agree that this kid may have wanted to find trouble and purposefully put himself in a situation where he was going to find it, but it's irrelevant to the situation once it unfolds. Much like its totally irrelevant that Floyd had a previous criminal record and meth in his system, it doesn't make it okay to choke him to death by kneeling on his neck for 8 minutes.

Whoa, wait a second now. This is no where near similar to a George Floyd situation or any other countless example of a black person who was killed by police brutality for a reason that had nothing to do with past legal troubles. Rittenhouse purposely sought out this situation. His past is absolutely relevant in this case, because it can help determine (not us, but in court) what exactly this guy’s intentions are especially if he fits the profile of a violent psychopath.

Rittenhouse KILLED two people.

His history is 100% relevant.

He wasn't victim of police brutality, he was an idiot who murdered people. Jesus this thread is **** depressing.

I'm going to wait for the ACTUAL facts before I make any judgements. I know nothing about this kid but what I do know is everyone deserves to give their side of the situation.

Everyone is so quick to pass judgement on others. We have judged people that are different than us since we were children. We always made fun of the kid who was different. It is no different now that we are adults. We still judge. We make judgments on the police, we make judgments on the victims, we make judgements on a kid who doesn't know any better but maybe he is just trying to help. We like to shame anyone who is different than we are. "Oh I wouldn't have shot that guy, what a terrible cop. Oh I would have listened to the police then I wouldn't have gotten shot. Oh why is a kid going across state with a firearm, he must be up to no good because I wouldn't have done that." We are so quick to judge people who are different than we are. And its unfortunate that the first difference we almost always see is the color of our skin. This is the very core of what racism is. We need to stop this on all levels and it starts at home. Every single home. There's no policy or politics that will fix us. Its going to be a long process of educating. Teaching and learning. We need to teach and learn to accept others differences instead of always jumping to judgement. But we can't teach our youth until we actually realize where the problem really starts.

[dougthonus]

Rittenhouse KILLED two people.

His history is 100% relevant.

He wasn't victim of police brutality, he was an idiot who murdered people. Jesus this thread is **** depressing.

I'm sorry, are you implying that someone in this situation was a victim of police brutality and that somehow that is relevant? Were his assailants victims of police brutality? How would that factor into their decision to chase him down as a gang while he attempts to flee, get him on the ground, surround him, hit him in the head with a skateboard, then point a gun at him prior to him firing?

Have you watched the video? What do you think he should have done?

[dougthonus]

I'm going to wait for the ACTUAL facts before I make any judgements. I know nothing about this kid but what I do know is everyone deserves to give their side of the situation.

You can watch it. There's a great video with a lawyer explaining it earlier in this thread. Ignoring whatever the Lawyer's stance is, just watching it, I can't see what you would have asked him to do that was reasonably different than what he did except to not be there in the first place.

I think we can all agree that it would have been had he stayed home, but once he's there and this situation unfolds, I don't know what you can expect him to do differently.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I'm going to wait for the ACTUAL facts before I make any judgements. I know nothing about this kid but what I do know is everyone deserves to give their side of the situation.

You can watch it. There's a great video with a lawyer explaining it earlier in this thread. Ignoring whatever the Lawyer's stance is, just watching it, I can't see what you would have asked him to do that was reasonably different than what he did.

A violent psychopath isn't trying to run away multiple times while heavily armed when he could have just blasted everyone.

I did watch that video and if the facts in the video are true I have to give the kid props. He has balls. I can only hope I have kids like that in my neighborhood if things got bad here. But I will let the judge, jury, and the law do their jobs.

Too many people are quick to judge though based on their opinion, their own upbringing, the structure of their own lives. People are different. We shouldn't be quick to judge him for that. This kid isn't like the majority. Is he a psychopath? Maybe. But maybe he isn't. Maybe he's just trying to be a hero. Is that a bad thing? In some peoples eyes maybe. But gosh we are all different. We need to start accepting each other. We don't all have to walk on the same path.

[Shill]

A few hours at most before the arrest happens. In some extreme cases, a day or two.

I agree with this vis-à-vis no-knock raids. They should almost never happen.

But in the case of Blake, he allegedly digitally raped a woman he had raped previously and was trespassing on her property.

He also stole her keys (and I'm not sure about the custody of the children).

I don't think that's a situation where you can just let a guy go and get him later.

[HomoSapien]

If the reverse situation happened and a black protester shot three white people after repeatedly trying to run away and flee and after those people chased him, attacked him, and had numbers of force against him, and had him on his back with no possibility of escape, would you bring up his (not even criminal but hearsay sketchy) past?

That fictional black protester put himself in that situation and choose to be there, just like Rittenhouse by showing up that night.

I do not think you would bring up such details in this situation. Instead, I think you would say this black protester was defending himself from crazy white racists and did everything he could to avoid shooting someone (which would be totally true). I think if someone else brought up his past the way you just did that you would accuse them of outright racism and say their view was ridiculous (which it would be).

Since I'm here and have still have my capabilities, I'd appreciate it if you let me give my own argument rather than guessing what I'd say.

Firstly, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up race in this situation. My issues with him have nothing to do with his race (but thanks for building up several posts trying to suggest my reverse racism). Furthermore, the three people he shot were white, so I don't really see the argument that it was racially motivated. My issue with Rittenhouse is that he took it upon himself to play police and shoot people.

I find your hypothetical to be silly. We're dealing with something that actually happened, we don't have to make up an imaginary situation to try and prove some point. But fine, I'll humor you. If the situation were reversed, and a Black person showed up to a protest or even a riot with guns and started shooting people, I can assure you, my sympathies wouldn't be with the shooter --- even if he went there and shot up a bunch of racists. That is not how society can, or should function. I don't agree with or support the idea of looting (I get the impression that you think I do). This situation should have been left to the police to handle, not some 17-year-old with a semi-automatic rifle. Plus, being murdered for looting isn't exactly an eye for eye punishment.

This isn't a situation where we don't know what happened and have to piece together different people's accounts of what happened and have to try to figure out his intention by guessing as to his character and conflicting reports.

You can literally go watch the video and see that when he fired his life was in obvious mortal peril and that he did not fire indiscriminately or go on some psychopathic rage killing spree.

First of all, there is gray area that you've failed to mention. The complaints about Rittenhouse from that night are that he was pointing his gun and threatening people throughout the night. It's pretty easy to see why people believed they needed to take his gun away. The first person he murdered was shot in the back (or possibly in the back of the head). That person ran at Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse shot him from behind when he wasn't facing "mortal peril" from him. The guy had already retreated. That's murder. The second guy he shot had a handgun --- that is self-defense.

Even if for some reason he is a violent psychopath under some other circumstances, which even mentioning is no different than describing Floyd as a violent criminal under different circumstances, you can watch the video and see that he was not a violent psychopath this night. He repeatedly fled the situation and only fired when he had reason to believe his life was at risk and fired a very limited number of shots.

To build an argument that a pattern of violence and psychopathic behavior isn't relevant in a situation where the shooter sought out violence is a weird stance. It is absolutely different than bringing it up in the Floyd situation and I'm disappointed that you are unable to see the difference and that you keep trying to conflate the two.

[dougthonus]

I did watch that video and if the facts in the video are true I have to give the kid props. He has balls. I can only hope I have kids like that in my neighborhood if things got bad here. But I will let the judge, jury, and the law do their jobs.

Too many people are quick to judge though based on their opinion, their own upbringing, the structure of their own lives. People are different. We shouldn't be quick to judge him for that. This kid isn't like the majority. Is he a psychopath? Maybe. But maybe he isn't. Maybe he's just trying to be a hero. Is that a bad thing? In some peoples eyes maybe. But gosh we are all different. We need to start accepting each other. We don't all have to walk on the same path.

I have no idea what hte kids intentions were (good or bad) that night. I'm not making any judgment on those myself at all.

I question anyone who goes to one of these things with an assault rifle and why they're there. If someone said he had bad intent that night, I could totally believe that.

That said, even if his intent going into the night was bad and he's a horrible person, watching the video, I don't know what more he could have done once the situation escalates to avoid firing.

[CBS7]

Your description of Rittenhouse seems filled with the problems and character assassination that is commonly used against black people when they are victimized but turn out to have a criminal record in the past. I completely agree that this kid may have wanted to find trouble and purposefully put himself in a situation where he was going to find it, but it's irrelevant to the situation once it unfolds. Much like its totally irrelevant that Floyd had a previous criminal record and meth in his system, it doesn't make it okay to choke him to death by kneeling on his neck for 8 minutes.

Whoa, wait a second now. This is no where near similar to a George Floyd situation or any other countless example of a black person who was killed by police brutality for a reason that had nothing to do with past legal troubles. Rittenhouse purposely sought out this situation. His past is absolutely relevant in this case, because it can help determine (not us, but in court) what exactly this guy’s intentions are especially if he fits the profile of a violent psychopath.

Rittenhouse KILLED two people.

His history is 100% relevant.

He wasn't victim of police brutality, he was an idiot who murdered people. Jesus this thread is **** depressing.

He's probably an idiot who was looking for a fight who had no business being there and was using his weapon illegally.

But according to what most places say are the sequence of events, guy 1 was cornering him and tried to go for his weapon.
Guy 2 hit him in the head with a skateboard.
Guy 3 (who didn't die) had a gun.
The 3 he shot were also from 30-40 minutes away.

I'm with you, its pretty disgusting. He's not free of blame for sure. But technically, I think its self defense. I'm not sure what else he should have done, aside from not going there in the first place.

Again this is according to what people are reporting. More stuff is coming out. If he was actually pointing his gun at protesters all night, then yeah, **** that kid.