No, this isn’t a matter for debate — it’s an established fact of the case, agreed to by all parties, that Gaige Grosskreutz was carrying a pistol. He also admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed the pistol at him.
I know you’re being sarcastic, but *yes*, that is responsible gun safety in a scenario where deadly force is required (which is why he was acquitted). Kyle exercised an incredible measure of discipline in his restraint—not shooting wildly into a mob that was overtaking him, only firing on those who were attacking him. Show me a police bodycam video where the officer is equally restrained.
Btw I agree that the so-called-armoror was inexperienced and immature. I can only imagine why a producer would so irresponsibly hire her? Wait..wasn’t the executive producer of that film also the main actor that pointed a gun at a crew member and pulled the trigger?
He was an active shooter, and thus a threat to anybody around, and the people tried to defend themselves from that threat. Why those people got denied the right of self-defense and treated as attackers instead? I think it is a total miscarriage of justice that an active shooter successfully claimed self-defense. Not shooting wildly into a mob is really a pretty low, a new low i'd say, bar of responsible gun safety. You seeing laudable restraint and discipline in that is one of the best illustrations of the gun problem in the society.
a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age.
b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.