Many young men were following Rittenhouse, yelling things like "Get him" and "Beat him up". I sensed a lot of dangerous emotions in the videos, in the sound of the voices and the movements of the bodies. Some say that those yelling "get him" merely wanted to makes sure than Rittenhouse did not escape legal accountability (for Rittenhouse's shooting minutes earlier of Joseph Rosenbaum). But consider that Rittenhouse was walking down the middle of a wide street towards a line of cops. What need was there to detain Rittenhouse rather than simply to follow him at a distance to make sure he keeps walking toward the police line?
Then someone hit Rittenhouse on the head, Rittenhouse kept walking quickly, but fell down after a few seconds. During questioning in court, he says he fell because he got dizzy because of the blow to his head. While sitting on his ass in the middle of the street, someone ran up to him, hit him on the shoulder with a skateboard and (almost in the same motion if I recall correctly) grabbed Rittenhouse's gun and tried to pull it away from him. This someone was making the kind of dramatic-but-somewhat-clumsy movements of their whole body that people tend to make when they are in the throes of an intense emotion and trying hard to achieve some physical outcome.
Then Rittenhouse shot that someone (Anthony Huber), which very sadly killed him.
Did I leave anything important out?
EDIT. I changed "hit him on the head" (with a skateboard) to "hit him on the shoulder".
Considering that these were protest against the police, it's not reasonable to assume that the people present had any faith in the police force, no.
>someone hit him on the head with a skateboard and grabbed his gun
Hit him on the shoulder. And after watching the video about ten times, it's looks like he stumbled and landed on Rittenhouse with the board, rather than actually swinging it. Unfortunately, we only have a few frames blurry video and Rittenhouse's word on the matter, since Rittenhouse shot and killed the man immediately.
edit: It looks like you edited your comment after I opened it to respond to make it more factual. Most of what I said above still applies, but I will point out the fact that, by your own admission, Hubor was attempting to disarm Rittenhouse "in the same motion" he made contact with his skateboard, but you insist he was at the same time swinging for the head show just how much opportunity there is to twist the facts of the case to suit whatever narrative you want to spin.
That is the second time in 7 seconds that Huber's skateboard gets very close to Rittenhouse's head. Here is the first time:
https://youtu.be/1i7xSigmrfw?t=27114
-- after which Huber retrieves his skateboard from the ground, which action is inconsistent with your hypothesis that Huber's goal was to grab Rittenhouse's gun in the second interaction and the skateboard was just inconveniently in his hand.
Or am I so naive and that a mob-like situation truly brings out the animals in all of us. Cooler heads did not prevail on either side.
Whatever happens, everyone involved should never be allowed to own a gun again. They could have all gone to a bar and had a fist fight and be done with it.
And the mother even drove the kid down there armed. The chaos of Mania makes me wonder if this is the last of this behavior we’ll see from everyone before this decade calms down.
This omission game goes both ways. You're leaving pertinent information out to support your narrative also.
He had already committed murder at this point. It's not unusual (though it is unwise) to attempt to prevent a murderer from running away. Furthermore, saying that anyone was "attempting to grievously assault him" is speculation, since he shot and killed the first person to reach him after he tripped, and then shot the next person who was trying to disarm him.
If self defense, not unlawful, which facts lead you to premeditated?
Had he?
Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing your fellow commentators of lying by omission
So, let's continue to clarify the facts. I went and found the video of the incident, and you're stretching the truth to the point of being disingenuous.
Here's the video (obvious warning, it has footage of Rittenhouse shooting his victims) https://files.catbox.moe/ayaw6u.mp4
Considering he never even swings it at Rittenhouse, and merely has it in his hand when he tries to stop him running away, that's a real stretch to say he's "trying to beat him to death". I won't argue that trying to stop an armed person by jumping them is a bad idea, but that's not what you said.
you can clearly see him hitting kyle with the skateboard at around 15 seconds here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg
https://heavy.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-video-photo...
I guess it just goes to show how hard it is to pull facts out of a couple seconds of grainy video
You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them.
Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstream media" of lying by omission.
edit: this is obviously a complicated case, but arguing whether his later shooting was in self-defense only serves to obfuscates the fact that this is a young man who brought a semi-automatic rifle to a protest, murdered an unarmed man, and then killed another before the shooting in question took place.