ozimoron

Show us the evidence that he did not point the gun at the demonstrators before they chased him as has been alleged. It is central to this argument and you deny it. Substantiate your allegation, I'm calling you on it. I have provided substantiation that Rittenhouse did in fact point his weapon at demonstrators before he was chased and offered a rational explanation for why he was singled out. You just claim to have no idea.

Show us the evidence. The prosecutor, under oath, showed video evidence of Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at the demonstrators before he was chased. Why did they single out Rittenhouse to chase, can you explain that as well?

Rittenhouse was threatening people with a high powered rifle. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Does the 2nd amendment cover pointing the gun at people as well?

Got a link for that? The prosecutor showed video evidence that he claimed showed otherwise. Did he need to specifically point the gun at them before they were justified in trying to prevent a shooting and apprehend him?

My question was were they reasonably justified in chasing him after he pointed the AR15 at them. As I said, that action itself was a felony offense. I can't help but think that under easily imaginable different circumstances your team would be hailing those who died as heroes.

People need to wait until someone who points a semi automatic rifle at them starts shooting now? At that point he has already committed a felony offense.

I quoted the prosecutor. He would not willfully lie under oath. The other shots were presumably not immediately fatal, a shot in the back with an AR15 is pretty much always instantly fatal. Your story here is based on what you want to believe and not any kind of published timeline or facts.

Maybe they were in immediate fear of their lives? Are you suggesting that people shouldn't react to a person they perceive as about to commit a mass shooting? Do you then concede that Rittenhouse should have let the police handle the crowd and was therefore a vigilante?

shot in the back with an AR15? What do you think? https://www.9news.com.au/world/kyle-rittenhouse-provoked-the-bloodshed-in-kenosha/abbea6a1-4aca-4956-bfcd-ddbdc456d03c

Rittenhouse knew the first person was unarmed. He also wasn't within arms length and therefore not capable of grabbing Rittenhouse' gun. Rittenhouse then shot the victim 4 times after he fell to the ground, delivering the kill shot into the victim's back. Is it then any wonder why the others chased him? He was an active shooter. Those who chased him shouted that he was the shooter.

You are wrong,

Those people tried to stop Rittenhouse because he pointed his rifle at the crowd. They were entitled to attack him in self defense and in fear of being shot. It is reasonable to presume that somebody who points a high powered rifle at a crowd is going to use it. This occurred BEFORE they chased him and is the reason they chased him.

A mass shooter is acting in self defense after killing two people because someone tries to stop him with a gun? Is that your position?

Grosskreutz pointed a gun at Rittenhouse after he had already shot two people. Rittenhouse isn't acting in self defense at that point.

So, if he points a gun at another person and that person pulls a gun on him and gets shot that's self defense?

Rittenhouse was standing in a group armed with high powered weapons and pointed the gun at the crowd of demonstrators FIRST. The deceased person with the pistol was more than justified at pulling the gun and pointing it at Rittenhouse, he acted in self defense.

Do you have evidence that the dealership belonged to his friend? My understanding is that it was the second dealership he went to after being told by the police to leave the first.

Why did he illegally procure a semi automatic rifle, bring it to a demonstration and point it at people?

linked twice above

He was allegedly pointing his weapon at them BEFORE they chased him, it's why they chased him. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/15/kyle-rittenhouse-provoked-everything-prosecution-says

Maybe? lol. Maybe they had tanks as well. Pistols are not notorious as the favourite weapon of mass shooters.

You can attack any person who points a semi automatic weapon at you. It's self defense at that point. He was not running away until he was chased down.

So they should just have ignored him right? Not provocative or dangerous at all? No risk of him becoming a mass shooter? They should wait until he kills someone?

Pointing a weapon notorious as the favorite weapon of mass shooters at a crowd of demonstrators does not constitute "simply being there".