When you're in an active situation you don't have time to wait 8 months for a trial to clear things up. Rittenhouse believed he acted in self-defense... And at the time, so did Huber, and Grosskreutz.

This seems to be a complete re-writing of the facts revealed from eye witness and video accounts of the events of that evening. The jury also seems to disagree with this alternate narrative.

It may be what some folks want to believe happened, but it is absolutely not the facts.

> The jury also seems to disagree with this alternate narrative.

The jury decided that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. That finding is not inconsistent with anything I said.

The whole problem of firing off guns in a crowd is that everyone involved might be acting in self-defense, and yet still end up killing eachother.

Life isn't a video game, or an action movie. You can't always tell who the 'bad guy' is, or even if there is one.

People do not defend themselves by chasing after and repeatedly attacking a stranger.

People absolutely have and occasionally do rush active shooters, which is what happened in the second part of the situation.

And if you don't ever believe that confronting an active shooter is ever the correct thing to do, why do you think having a gun will help you? Take your own advice and run away, you don't need a gun to do that.

> The jury also seems to disagree with this alternate narrative.

The prosecution couldn't bring to the stand the people he killed -- because they were dead.

When your in an event the person running TOWARDS the police being chased by a mob is generally not the criminal, just saying...

I do not believe that the people who attacked Rittenhouse believed that he was an active shooter they needed to stop, not for a moment do I believe that, nor did the jury, nor did anyone else that has a rational mind

Active shooters do not run toward police with their hands up