Major Update: "First Shooter" and Accomplice Identified?

[Edit History:

29: Aug:

• Added frames from the hyper long (5.5GB) "Reggie Stream" which bolster the theory that "Grey Camo Pants" is the "First Shooter". Thanks @mcantu.

28 Aug:

• Complaint added. (Thanks to @HMCS who somehow found a digital copy when all I could manage was horrible phonecam images).
  
• Charging list added.
  
• Deeper (and hopefully more correct) analysis of Wisconsin and Illinois firearm laws suggesting Rittenhouse may not have been in violation of statute in either jurisdiction.
  
• Thanks to: @keeperofthedew @Kampster @sbhaven @Rattlehead502 on the Illinois side.
  
• Thanks to: New members @Esqappellate (fellow victim of the bar) @gjomas and @45custom on the Wisconsin side.
  
• The "Grassy Knoll/Lone Handgunman" issue explored. Thanks to @SwannyJ and others.
  
• The "How Rittenhouse came to be isolated" issue explored. Thanks to @Granzka and others.
  
• Typo (Allis for Grosskreutz). Thanks @darkd0r.
  
• Clarification: It is not clear that Rittenhouse was at the Ultimate station. Thanks @Former11BRAVO.
  
• Edit history moved up front.
• Post edited to obfuscate banned nomenclature at mod's request.
• Added detail about Lin Wood Tweet (unverified) regarding local Wisconsin source for Rittenhouse's rifle. Thanks @FenixAmmunition and @mcantu.

27 Aug:

• Added CCW reference re: Grosskreutz
  
• "...to be detained..." optimism called out. Thanks @kallnojoy

By now the majority of you will have seen or heard of the pair of engagements in Kenosha, Wisconsin (hereinafter the "Engagements") between one Kyle Rittenhouse and a number of other individuals, some recently departed, others now unfortunately unable to operate a keyboard with any efficiency, particularly when proper capitalization is required of their typewritten text. In the wake of these encounters it is quite something to see the degree of bad information, misinformation, and disinformation that has showered the socialinterwebsitetubes, particularly from a tactical and legal perspective.
On the tactical side, it is surprising that matters seem so distorted, since the Engagements must rank among the most comprehensively filmed deadly force CQB incidents in some years (and one of the only engagements in recent memory involving an AR system). In fact, despite the poor lighting conditions, the mobile nature of the camera operators (none, to my knowledge, trained combat photographers), and the chaos of small unit action that will be familiar to anyone who has been in the midst of it, it is possible to view the most cogent parts of the engagement in vivid detail, from multiple camera angles, and with stereo sound. On the legal side, well, many new expert commentators may lack a formal law degree, but they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express (7887 94th Ave, Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, 53158) and probably ordered several on-demand Better Call Saul episodes the night before the Engagements besides.
Given the sudden merger of two subjects of great interest to me, and a five hour phone call I had with an old acquaintance now an employee of the Federal Government of the United States based not far from Wisconsin, I could not but look into the Engagements more carefully. Having done so, I could not but type up my analysis. Having done so I could not but seek a forum for publication.
Alas, my efforts to interest the American Journal of Jurisprudence https://academic.oup.com/ajj resulted in threats of a restraining order (I am convinced that a prior incident, in theory long forgotten, involving a senior official at the Law School of the University of Notre Dame, a poker game, and a young woman with binoculars may have contributed to the misunderstanding). Naturally, having exhausted my backup options, I reverted to my first choice in scholarly publication excellence: ARFCOM.

Some Administrative Details:
After action reports compiled by third parties are notoriously subject to error. Often it is difficult to assign certainty levels to statements in such reports as the authors decline to qualify their language. It seems excessive to use analytic confidence terms (high confidence, moderate confidence, etc.) in such a scholarly article, and so where I believe a good deal of uncertainty exists I will so denote using brackets with a question mark. For example:

Jeffrey Epstein didn't hang himself. (Reasonably high confidence)
[The check is in the mail.]? (Low confidence)
[The check]? is in the mail. (Something is in the mail, but who knows if it is the check?)

Sources Consulted:
I assembled 22 videos from various public sources and one non-public source. Most were high resolution originals (i.e. not streams recorded from third parties). Most videos were high-quality 1270x720 resolution captures (i.e. Twitter standard or better). Many were contemporaneous recordings of the Engagements. I also collected 46 photos taken at various times and places. For geographic detail I consulted Google Maps and various overhead imagery sources (Google Maps, Google Earth, and a proprietary service). With respect to videos documenting the actual Engagements, for detailed analysis, and to accurately record the timeline, I created a single real-time composite video using Adobe Premiere Pro. The final video includes side-by-side / quad-frame video to display multiple sources simultaneously where timelines of single videos overlapped. Where possible, timeline sync between videos was accomplished via sound sync (gunshots provided the most distinctive reference points). In two cases video sync via sound was lagged to compensate for acoustic lag due to the distance between videographers.
The final composite video is 1566MB at full resolution and so, regrettably, I cannot share it in this forum. Please contract me directly if you have a compelling interest (rather than idle curiosity) to view it.
Other images and video presented herein are done so under the limited audience/scholarly or research purpose "Fair Use" copyright exception.

Background Prior to the Engagements:


At least one source indicates Rittenhouse's father may be a police officer in or near Antioch. Pictures from various social media accounts appear to show Rittenhouse handling firearms (particularly AR platforms) from a young age (7-10 years).
The Antioch Fire Department acknowledged that Rittenhouse was a "Fire Protection Cadet" at one point.
According to the Grayslake Police Department Rittenhouse was a member of the joint Public Safety Cadet Program for the Lindenhurst, Grayslake, and Hainesville police departments. The program offered ride-along sessions as well as firearms training, though it is not clear how extensive these elements were or to what extent Rittenhouse participated.


It appears that Rittenhouse attended a Trump rally at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa on 30 January 2020.


Most sources indicate that, at all relevant times immediately relevant to the Engagements, Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old. The first degree murder complaint filed against him in Antioch, Illinois on 26 August 2020 lists his date of birth as 3 January 2003, "504" in height ([5'04"]?), and 150 pounds.
Rittenhouse is described as a resident of Antioch, Illinois, a municipality 19-20 miles from Kenosha, Wisconsin. Some sources indicate that Rittenhouse drove to Kenosha, Wisconsin, though the timing of his departure/arrival is unclear.


At least one photo prior to the Engagements shows an unarmed Rittenhouse helping to clean Black Lives Matter graffiti off of property.


In a video before (perhaps immediately before) the Engagements, Rittenhouse is seen explaining to Daily Caller reporter/cameraman Richie McGinniss that he is there to "help people" and "protect property," but that he may also go "into harm's way." Rittenhouse indicates the AR-15 platform rifle [edit: the complaint states that police recovered a "Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle". Other sources claim it is a DPMS Oracle, likely based on an old photo of Rittenhouse holding one.] topped with some red dot / holographic site variant (the magnification optics from prior Rittenhouse photos have been replaced with an [EOTech]? [edit: More recent sources suggest the rifle is topped with a cheap Chinese sight of some sort]) which he is carrying via a [single point]? sling. A polymer, 30-round magazine is prominently visible, though no spare magazines appear to be carried.


In the video Rittenhouse makes a point of indicating his "medkit" as well, an orange and black bag also slung crosswise across his shoulder. In the interview video, and for the duration of the Engagements, Rittenhouse is seen wearing blue/purple (likely nitrile) gloves.
Another video by independent reporter/journalist Elijah Schaffer apparently filmed in a similar timeframe to the McGinniss video has Rittenhouse explaining his presence in a similar way. In response to a question by the reporter about non-lethal munitions Rittenhouse indicates that he is not carrying any (the implication being that Rittenhouse is prepared to use deadly force). The interview ends as Rittenhouse spies an apparently wounded individual being carried along.
"Medical," he calls. "[EMS]? right here. I'm an EMT." At this point in the video Rittenhouse pushes past the reporter to reach the injured party. It is not clear if Rittenhouse is actually a certified EMT, or if he would have obtained such certification via his status as a "Fire Protection Cadet," though it should be noted that trained but not yet certified ambulance staff are often referred to as "EMTs" despite the lack for formal certification.
In another video Rittenhouse is seen apparently in the company of, if not affiliated with, one group of armed individuals. The group appears to be attached to/protecting a local business with the windows boarded up. Rittenhouse and the members of the group can be heard interacting with local police who indicate their appreciation for the group's presence. [edit: By way of clarification, the group referred to in the previous sentence refers to the individuals Rittenhouse was in the company of when he communicated with police and accepted water from them, not the group a the Ultimate station introduced in the passage below:]

Confrontations Immediately Prior to the Engagements:


As one might expect, reports from the night in question are confused, but it appears as if at least two armed groups, a local militia type group composed of or supporting business owners, and a liberty/libertarian defence collective, gathered around a number of businesses along Sheridan Road in Kenosha. One of these businesses was Ultimate Convenience Center at 6007 Sheridan Road (formerly a Shell station).
Three individuals who would later feature prominently in the Engagements first appear here:


The tall individual wearing the hoodie, a blue cap, glasses, an olive drab, perhaps camouflage-patterned backpack, faded jeans and a red-accented face mask clutching a skateboard I have tentatively identified as one Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, Wisconsin. In 2012 Mr. Huber pled guilty to Felony "Strangulation and Suffocation" (with a Domestic Abuse modifier) and Felony False Imprisonment (with a Domestic Abuse and Use of a Dangerous Weapon modifier). Four other charges apparently from the same incident or incidents ranging from misdemeanor to felony level were dismissed. Mr. Huber received 3 years probation for his guilty plea. From the records available to me it appears that Mr. Huber violated his probation in 2016 and a sentence of 2 years (with a year credit) in State Prison was order, but it is unclear if this was a technical or material violation and if Huber was actually incarcerated for the violation.
The shorter, bald individual in the red short-sleeved shirt wearing [denim]? capri pants and white shoes with ankle-high white socks (this short, bald subject hereinafter the "Short Bald Subject" for brevity) MAY be is Joseph D. Rosenbaum, 36. Rosembaum is (was) subject to a life-long sex offender registration order in Wisconsin for his Arizona conviction on two counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor in 2002. Sentenced to 10 years in prison, he appears to have been incarcerated in Arizona from 2002 until paroled in 2012. He apparently violated his parole by tampering with a monitoring device in 2014 and may have been incarcerated thereafter. During his incarceration he racked up dozens of corrections institute disciplinary violations for offences including Assault with a Weapon, Assault on Staff, Arson, and Possession of Narcotics.
It is difficult to be certain, but it appears from the video that the two individuals, Short Bald Subject and Huber, are acquainted, if not acting in concert.
Both appear to aggressively challenge the group "protecting" the Ultimate establishment, but Short Bald Subject is much more confrontational. He verbally berates the defenders:

(External Video Link: 6MB .mp4)
Short Bald Subject: "Don't point no motherfucking gun at me [homes.]? [Unintelligible]. [I'll fuck you]? with anything you got. Shoot me n***er. Shoot me n***er. [Bust on me]? n***er. For real." ...


...and gets in at least one scuffle with the armed men:


During the scuffle he drops a white plastic bag which appears to have beverage bottles or other cylindrical objects inside. Later, he is forced to pick up the bag, a piece of evidence that will become relevant in due course.


Also present in the crowd at Ultimate, wearing a black shirt with a yellow logo, a blue baseball hat with white lettering on the front, some sort of orange scarf or handkerchief, a grey-strapped backpack with red trim with a yellow bottle in a pouch on the left side, and smoking a cigarette, is an individual I have tentatively identified as Gaige P. Grosskreutz, 26, of West Allis, Wisconsin. In 2016 Mr. Allis Grosskreutz pled guilty to a charge of Going Armed with a Firearm while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor. His 4 month sentence [was apparently stayed]? and he was released to 12 months of probation. As part of his pre-trial hearings he was ordered not to possess firearms or deadly weapons, but it is not clear from the record if this restriction was lifted after he completed his probation. There are also charges against Mr. Grosskreutz of Felony Burglary, Misdemeanor Theft, Misdemeanor Criminal Trespass, and Misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct, but the disposition of those charges are unknown. Grosswreutz appears to be connected with something called the "People's Revolution Movement."
Note: Rittenhouse does not appear to be in the crowd in this video.
The crowd at Ultimate being unable to achieve their objectives at that location, apparently seek to find other venues to articulate the critical import of their views on the human condition and their opinions on the current state of the social compact. In particular, "Car Source," the maintenance facility/service garage of a car dealership some 300 meters to the south of Ultimate long known as a typical locale for the post-midnight speaking of public speeches, Oxford-style debate, and constructive airing of grievances, much like the famous Roman Forum of ancient times.

(External Video Link: 7MB .mp4) Questionable subtitles hardcoded in original.
As the group is seen in video walking towards Car Source, one of the participants calls out their destination "Car Source." Another calls out "Burn [it]? inside." At this point it appears the group is nearly at the Car Source lot (formerly Bert & Rudy's Auto Service) immediately across from the Kenosha Medical Center. The illuminated signs for the center can be seen on the left side of the street.

(External Video Link: 5MB .mp4)
A number of individuals appear to be at the Car Source lot already, and prior video shows individuals smashing windows of cars including a [black or green]? [Nissan Quest]? with a bat. The distinctive "Service" sign and spotlights of the Car Source maintenance garage can be seen in the background.

The First Engagement:

(External Video Link: 20MB .mp4)
As the group approaches the Car Source lot, a foot pursuit begins in the direction of the building with the "Auto Service" sign on the lot. There is no clear indication from any of the available video what precipitated the chase, but after dozens of replays of the video segment in question I cannot hear any sounds that are obvious firearms discharges that might have precipitated the events that followed. As the camera gets closer a shirtless man with [denim]? capri pants and a red mask/bandanna can be seen chasing another man.

(External Video Link: 5MB .mp4)
In a second angle the pursuer can be seen throwing an object at the quarry. Interwebsocialtube speculation that this object was a "Molotov cocktail" seems inaccurate.




Instead, the object appears to be a translucent white plastic bag and the fluttering action as it travels through the air when backlit from the floodlights of the Car Source building gives the appearance of flames.


In a later video the bag can be seen clearly on the ground.



The pursuer catches up with the quarry.


The quarry turns to face the pursuer with only a few feet between the two parties.


[A shot/shots]? are fired. From multiple audio sources it seems that there were several shots fired in three sequences. My own ear suggests that the sets begin with a single report (careful review of both video angles suggests it is possible the quarry turned to get off a single snapshot at this moment).

[Edit 28 Aug:

The New York Times and several posters here have suggested that there is an individual shot in the air from a handgun before Rittenhouse fires on Rosenbaum. After reviewing three video angles I am now convinced this is correct. The correct sequence of shots appears to be:
+0.00s: Single shot (clearly not Rittenhouse from the video)
+1.92s: "Fuck you!"
+2.92s: Volly of 4 shots (apparently all from Rittenhouse at Short Bald Subject)
+5.95s: Volly of 3 shots (Rittenhouse is behind a car so it is not possible to see if he is the shooter, but it does not appear so.

Further, I think we have a good idea who the initial shooter might be. In this video two figures, one tall and apparently male, one shorter and apparently female with her hair in a bun and a backpack, can be seen walking in front of the Car Source lot.

(External Video Link: 19MB .mp4)



The man appears to stop, retrieve something, and then extend his hand in the air and fire a shot. This is the same location that the New York Times analysis identified as the potential shot coming from. What is striking is that after the shot the two figures keep walking in a totally casual way. They can be seen departing the scene together to the left, still totally nonplussed by multiple shots fired in the immediate vicinity.




I now believe these figures were present at the Ultimate station prior to the confrontation. To me they appear to be "BLM Backpack Girl" and "Grey Camo Pants." Grey Camo pants can be seen brandishing a handgun during the entire video. Both are possessed of a casual, almost passive demeanor the entire time. Experienced operators watching the video of the Ultimate station confrontation will recognise something familiar about these actors and the way they case the situation, orbit each other without explicitly communicating, infiltrate the lines of the defenders, etc. To me these look like experienced agitators.

(External Video Link: 35MB .mp4)
Notice in the above video how BLM Backpack Girl and Grey Camo Pants appear, casually mingle into the situation without participating or being phased by any of the shouting, pushing, or confrontation around them. At one point BLM Backpack Girl wanders right in the middle of a shouting match between the armed group and Short Bald Subject. Ho hum. Just another day at the office.



Compare the features of the "first shooter" with Grey Camo Pants. Note the untucked white shirt peeking out from beneath the dark hoodie. The skull cap. The baggy pants.
Compare the features of the figure walking with "first shooter" with BLM Backpack Girl. The hair in a bun. The backpack. The relative hight to "first shooter" The casual gait and nonplussed demeanor.


After Rittenhouse stops shooting the pair appear to return and beckon to someone(s) off-camera. On the video it sounds as if they are the ones calling "He shot him! He shot him!"

Obviously, if correct, these theories would suggest that have significant an impact on the case. Going out on a limb, is it possible that Grey Camo Pants saw the potentially confrontation with the obviously armed Rittenhouse and fired off a round in the air to intentionally escalate the situation and trigger a response? Might the additional gunshots heard beyond the 3-4 rounds probably expended by Rittenhouse have been discharged by Grey Camo Pants? No one else seems to have been hit with gunfire. Were those shots set off in the air to add to the confusion and chaos and trigger responses?

end edit]

[Edit Aug 29:


In this frame from the extended "Reggie Stream" the silhouetted figure appears to be wearing a string-strap soft backpack. In the video the flopping of the pack as the figure walks is pronounced.




In these three frames we can see "Grey Camo Pants" wearing a black, [leather]? string-strap soft backpack. The first two frames are from the Ultimate station prior to Engagement 1. The last frame is on the way to the medical center across from the Car Source lot, where Short Bald Subject was carried after being shot by Rittenhouse. This definitively puts Grey Camo Pants at the scene of Encounter 1 and, given the short time from the shooting of Short Bald Subject to his being carried to the adjacent medical center, the third frame would suggest that Grey Camo Pants was on the scene within the timeframe of the shooting. Obviously, this supports the notion that the figure in the video who appears to be the "First Shooter" might be Grey Camo Pants.

end edit]





An apparent bystander in all black behind both the quarry and his pursuer seems to react to that first shot. Only after the bystander has flown to the right side of the primary video does the quarry, now between two cars, clearly turn towards the now melee-close pursuer. Four reports are heard, all seemingly the same caliber.
The shirtless man goes down. A cameraman in black (revealed below) rushes towards the fallen man.
After circling around a car and flanking the scene, the quarry returns to the illuminated part of the lot.


As the cameraman zooms in we can see the quarry more clearly. Green top and an orange/yellow bag on a sling. The "medkit" carried by Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse immediately makes a phone call. On the best available audio he can be heard saying either ["I shot someone."]? or ["I killed someone."]? It is not clear if he has dialled emergency services, or someone else. [Edit 28 Aug: From the complaint against Rittenhouse it now seems clear that he called a friend named Dominic Black.]
A bystander (who is later revealed as Daily Caller reporter Richie McGinniss, who earlier interviewed Rittenhouse) peels off his shirt to tend to the wounds of the felled pursuer.
While the quarry is on the phone someone off-camera can be heard yelling: "Get that motherfucker."
[At least one witness reports McGinniss or someone nearby then told the quarry "Get out of here."]?


As the camera approaches the quarry can be clearly identified as Rittenhouse (note the blue/purple gloves, the orange medkit, the green top, the AR/sling combination) turns and runs North on Sheridan Road still talking on the phone.


The pursuer has [denim]? capri pants, white shoes, white ankle socks, and a short-sleeved red shirt wrapped around his face, but those facial features that can be seen (moustache, nose) when the covering falls to the chin and the similar shirt color strongly suggest the pursuer is Short Bald Subject. The face-wrapping of the shirt raises questions of motive. If, as seems clear, the subject was wearing the shirt a short time and distance before at the Ultimate gas station, why remove it and use it as a face wrap prior to transiting to the Car Source property?


As the camera closes in on the felled pursuer clear evidence of head trauma can be seen including an apparent cerebral flow nosebleed. Twitching in the extremities suggests severe brain injury. A smartphone in the foreground reads 11:49pm.
Several people attend to Short Bald Subject, but experienced personnel will easily recognise from the video that his chances are extremely poor. Later a totally limp and unresponsive Short Bald Subject is seen in video being carried to a truck (odd given the nearby presence of the Medical Center with a clear sign indicating it has emergency facilities).

[Edit 28 Aug:

From the complaint against Rittenhouse, interview with McGinnis by Detective Cepress:
Upon reaching the car (just before Short Bald Subject is shot):

"...[Rittenhouse] had the gun in a low ready position."

"McGinnis said that [Rosenbaum] was trying to get [Rittenhouse's] gun... [Rittenhouse pulled it away and then raised it... when [Rosenbaum] was shot he had leaned in (towards [Rittenhouse])."

On Rosenbaum's wounds from the complaint:

"Dr. Kelly of the Milwaukee Medical Examiner's Office conducted an office on Joseph Rosenbaum. Dr. Kelly indicated that Rosenbaum had a gunshot wound to the right groin which fractured his pelvis, a gunshot wound to the back which perforated his right lung and liver, a gunshot wound to the left hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his lateral left thigh, and a graze gunshot wound to the right side of his forehead.

Aside from the wound "to the back" his is more consistent with the [4]? shots heard just before Short Bald Subject goes down. Reviewing the Car Source video the "red mist" of an exit bloom consistent with a mid-section/pelvic shot seems apparent on closer inspection. With reference to the "gunshot wound to the back" this seems curious. The only person obviously behind Short Bald Subject was the reporter/photographer McGinnis. Perhaps this is describing an exit wound. I have not been able to locate a copy of the autopsy report and therefore have to rely on the assumption that it is correctly reflected in the complaint, a very generous assumption. While Short Bald Subject appears to be on his back when the camera gets closer it seems appears on close scrutiny that McGinnis turned Short Bald Subject over when he arrived to render aid.

I have looked repeatedly at the video segments with closeups of Short Bald Subject after the shooting but cannot readily discern wounds beyond the clear gouge to the right of his head. Certainly, there does not to appear to be any exit wound on Short Bald Subject's exposed chest that would be suggestive of a through-and-though shot to the back.]

Second Engagement:

(External Video Link: 5MB .mp4)
As Rittenhouse runs North on Sheridan, word among the street-roving groups spreads that he has shot someone and is to be detained (at least in the most charitable interpretation). Soon after, as Rittenhouse approaches reaches 61st street, at least a dozen individuals are seen pursuing Rittenhouse in multiple videos.



The group in pursuit includes a figure wearing a blue cap, and a backpack with red trim with a yellow, apparently cylindrical object in the left side. As the man runs he appears to be holding his hand inside the rear waistband of his [khaki]? capri pants as if to hold them up or secure an object from bouncing due to his gait. It will later become apparent that this is Grosskreutz, and that he appears to have been carrying a concealed handgun in a rear-waistband CCW rig.


Just prior to 61st street Rittenhouse passes an individual wearing a white face covering and a bright red backpack (hereinafter "Red Backpack"). As Rittenhouse runs by Red Backpack points at him.



An individual wearing a white shirt (hereinafter "White Shirt") and catches up to Rittenhouse and strikes Rittenhouse in the back of the head, knocking his hat off. Rittenhouse stumbles but recovers and continues running. Immediately after the blow in the background of two videos dialogue can be heard:
Individual 1: "What did he do?"
Individual 2: "Shot someone."
Individual 3: "Get his ass!"


At this point a figure wearing faded jeans and apparently carrying a skateboard can be seen just behind Rittenhouse gaining on him. The individual throws the skateboard at Rittenhouse and can later be seen retrieving it.

(External Video Link: 21MB .mp4) WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC
Just after crossing 61st street, immediately after the skateboard throw, but not apparently due to it, Rittenhouse loses his footing and falls face down on the pavement in the middle of Sheridan Road. He begins to roll over into a sitting position facing south, just in time to face a series of four attackers, all of whom are charging the sitting Rittenhouse.


Just as Rittenhouse is recovering the first attacker, Red Backpack, appears ready to tackle or strike Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse brings his rifle to bear. Red Backpack thinks better of it and, from less than a meter way retreats backwards.

(External Video Link: 15MB .mp4) Full Size Video @ 50% Speed
The second attacker wearing light colored pants (hereinafter "Light Pants") approaches Rittenhouse's right front flank and looks ready to kick or stomp Rittenhouse but once Rittenhouse brings the rifle to bear he flinches. Just as Light Pants appears to make contact with Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse fires what is apparently the first shot in the second encounter.


The shot is directed almost completely vertically. [A possible second shot can be heard just after]? as White Pants tumbles over Rittenhouse, and it is not clear if White Pants is hit, but he apparently thinks better of the encounter, gets up, and runs off with no immediate signs of injury.


Having retrieved his skateboard, the third attacker, Huber, arrives a split second later having attempted to flank Rittenhouse from the rear. He kneels down on Rittenhouse, and the skateboard held in Huber's right hand makes at least incidental contact with Rittenhouse's left shoulder. Tangled somewhat with Rittenhouse, Huber attempts to control Rittenhouse's rifle with his left hand and pull it away. Rittenhouse maintains control of the rifle and can be seen holding it with both hands as Huber pulls on it from [the back of the magazine]?. Rittenhouse ends up flat on his back. The rifle momentarily comes away from Rittenhouse's body with Rittenhouse's arms fully extended while retaining but the muzzle ends up aligned neatly with Huber's body. Rittenhouse gets off a shot apparently center mass. Huber lets go of the rifle, drops the skateboard, staggers four steps, and collapses.

[Edit Aug 28:

On Huber's wounds from the complaint:
"Dr. Kelly also conducted an autopsy on Anthony Huber. Dr. Kelly indicated that Huber had a gunshot wound to his chest that perforated his heart, aorta, pulmonary artery and right lung."]

Just as the shot is fired the fourth attacker, Grosskreutz arrives. It seems clear that Grosskreutz is holding a handgun in his right hand as he approaches Rittenhouse. He reacts to the sound of the shot by flinching, stopping short of Rittenhouse, and protecting his head with his hands and forearms.

[Edit Aug 28:

Some Twittersocialtubes user named Jacob Marshall claims "...so the kid shot gaige as he drew his weapon and gaige retreated with his gun in hand. I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz toohis [sic] only regret was not killing the kid and hestiating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him. Coward."

I don't think this is correct. Just to be sure I've looked again but from two different angles it seems clear to me that Grosskreutz already has the weapon drawn when he approaches Rittenhouse.

The clearing a malfunction comment is interesting. Looking close at the timeframe after Huber is center-massed, it does appear that Rittenhouse turns his rifle sideways and looks at the weapon for a split second and maybe even cycles the charging handle with his right hand. If so, that is an unbelievably smooth clearing of a malfunction. Looking at the two high-resolution photos I see three in sequence. Huber attack prior to the shot. Grosskreutz arms up 1 right after the Huber shot. Grosskreutz arms up 2 just before his bicep is red-misted. There appears to be a casing on the ground before the Huber attack. Two after. But not three. So if there was a malfunction it was a failure to feed, not something more serious (good thing too). Rittenhouse appears to be looking at his rifle in arms up 2.]



When he recovers from the initial flinch Rittenhouse has rolled into an upright sitting position and brings his rifle to bear on Grosskreutz. At this point Grosskreutz puts his hands up. In two photos the handgun in his right hand is clearly visible.


After a pause of a second or so Grosskreutz charges Rittenhouse again. Rittenhouse fires and "red mists" a significant part of Grosskreutz's right upper arm. Grosskreutz hops once, grabs his wounded arm and begins to scream "medic" over and over while retreating.


In a later photograph Grosskreutz can be seen still clutching the handgun with a severely damaged arm. The hat he is wearing clearly reads "Paramedic." Much interwebsocialtube ado has been made about a "Paramedic" carrying a firearm. It seems prudent to note that Rittenhouse, representing himself as an "EMT" was also armed.
Two other would be attackers, one with a large blunt instrument, back off, one with his hands up.


Rittenhouse comes to kneeling, turns, and continues north towards the Ultimate station and an apparent line police set up on 60th street.
As Rittenhouse approaches police he is apparently asked on the PA of an armoured vehicle if "someone [is] injured straight ahead?" Rittenhouse directs the officers towards the scene, and tries to approach a patrol car. A voice can be heard yelling [at Rittenhouse]?: "Get out of the way." Rittenhouse ends up backing off to the sidewalk.
In a later video Rittenhouse appears and seems to try and approach police again. A voice on a PA can be heard yelling [at Rittenhouse?] "Don't come this way. Don't come this way."
Rittenhouse would later turn himself into the Antioch, Illinois authorities, having apparently left Wisconsin for home. According to court records, Rittenhouse appeared at Lake County Circuit Court Wednesday and will appear in court again on Friday for an extradition hearing.

Tactical Analysis:



During the two Engagements Rittenhouse was presented with a series of "shoot/no-shoot" situations. While it is difficult to be certain about the number of shots fired by Rittenhouse in the first Engagement, as near as I can tell he fired his weapon only when cornered or on the verge of being in a close physical contest with assailants larger and apparently stronger than himself. If anything he seems to have been too hesitant to fire in the first encounter. Absent a headshot at extreme close/near contact range (a very low probability shot in intense CQB) Rittenhouse likely would have been overcome by prison-hardened and clearly aggressively disposed Short Bald Subject.


In the close in photos depicting the Second Engagement Rittenhouse can even be seen exhibiting proper trigger discipline when confronted by the "hand-up" fake surrendering Grosskreutz. Having fired on Grosskreutz it would have been a simple matter to finish the job with a second center-mass shot, particularly given that Grosskreutz was still carrying his handgun (had I personally been in such a situation and seen the handgun I likely would have fired at least a quick follow-up and perhaps until the threat was all the way down rather than hopping around with a firearm still in hand). Rittenhouse, however, declines to do so (perhaps he did not even see the handgun) and instead recovers to kneeling and then his feet and departs to the north. At least in the second engagement Rittenhouse's fire discipline is surprisingly controlled given the apparent stress of being pursued and battered by an angry mob.


Rittenhouse prevailed in at least four physical encounters, at least one if not two of which involved contests for control of his weapon by larger, presumably stronger assailants. Rittenhouse's use of a tactical sling would seem to have been of enormous help in permitting him to retain control of his weapon in the physical contest with Huber.
To the extent Rittenhouse made tactical mistakes the most obvious would seem to include:
1. Entering an (Kenosha) environment alone and without apparent support. While Rittenhouse may have been casually associated with some of the groups on the ground it seems to be the case that his association was struck up on his arrival, not a pre-existing one.
2. Allowing himself to become physically isolated and surrounded at the scene of Engagement 1. It is not clear what precipitated the initial conflict with Short Bald Subject, but in this Rittenhouse appears to have been rather unlucky to become entangled in a dispute with one of the more volatile individuals on the scene. This said, it should be entirely foreseeable that volatile individuals would be at the scene of a riot or civil unrest.
3. Failing to remain as situationally aware as possible, particularly to threats behind him, and permitting himself to be repeatedly overtaken from the rear in between Engagements 1 and 2. Prior to going to the ground at the beginning of Engagement 2, Rittenhouse allowed no less than three attacks from the rear which resulted in physical contact. Rittenhouse was lucky that none of these attacks disabled him or rendered him helpless in the face of the pursuing mob. The first battery to the back of Rittenhouse's head, in particular, had the potential to take Rittenhouse out of the fight for good. If, in fact, Huber and Short Bald Subject were associated, it isn't hard to imagine Rittenhouse would have come out badly on the wrong side of Engagement 2 if Huber was the vengeful type.

Legal Analysis (Note: I am a lawyer but certainly not yours, and not in Wisconsin):
Possession of Firearms in Wisconsin and Illinois:

Wisconsin firearms law provides for open carry of loaded rifles and pistols for those 18 16 and older not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms. Unless Rittenhouse's age has been incorrectly reported he would be in violation of these statutes. Similar statutes exist in Illinois.

[Edit Aug 28:

Further analysis of Wisconsin's  948.60 suggests this interpretation is incorrect.
That section provides, in rather plain appearing language:
"Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
The term "dangerous weapon" is defined:
"In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded...." (emphasis mine)
However,
The section is modified via:
"This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."
Among other irrelevant provisions  941.28 restricts possession of Short-barrelled rifles which it defines as: "'Short-barreled rifle' means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches."
29.304 pertains to "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age."
29.593 establishes a "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval."
So to generalise, what the Wisconsin legislature wrote was: "You can't possess a firearm if you are under 18."
What the Wisconsin legislature apparently meant to SAY was: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with means any firearm, loaded or unloaded is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor except we didn't mean under 18, we meant under 16 and not complying with hunting restrictions and not properly certified. Oh, and if the 'firearm' is a SBR or sawed off shotgun."
Shameful rookie mistake on my part: Underestimating the ability of a legislature to restrict that which has been unrestricted in part and restricted in part and excepted from plain meaning by subsection before being generally modified in the definitions of an entirely separate statute. I cannot bring myself to explore the legislative history of these statutes in detail but this sort of twisted language usually is the result of sneaky efforts by later sessions (when the legislature is controlled by a different party than the drafters) to blunt a statute that rubs them the wrong way. "Shhhhh.... let's just change the definition in a late night session at the end of the term by attaching the amendment to the roads and sanitation authorisation."
Great catches here by fellow victim of the bar @Esqappellate and new member @gjomas. Also, @45custom read the legislative history so I didn't have to:
"(3)(c) was not added until 2005 which would explain the clumsy ordering of the text." He goes on to say: "It's unclear whether the general restrictions on possession and control outlined in 29.304 are relevant for 16 year olds, but 17 year olds are clearly out of the framework." Which now appears like the correct statutory analysis to me.]

Further, in Wisconsin and Illinois, providing an underaged individual [not entitled to have one] with a firearm is a felony [edit in some circumstances]. It seems safe to assume that Rittenhouse's enthusiasm for firearms was supported at least in some measure by his legal guardians. If they knowingly lent him use of the AR he carried in Kenosha they may face charges under these statutes.

Transportation of Firearms between Wisconsin and Illinois:

Federal law pre-empts the prosecution of illegal transportation via 18 U.S.C. ?926A which provides:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."
Any number of state statutes in Wisconsin or Illinois may govern the illegal importation or exportation of firearms where the "peaceable journey" exemption of 18 U.S.C.  926A does not preempt. Rittenhouse is in jeopardy here if his age is reported correctly as he is not legally able to possess the AR platform he possessed in Kenosha in either Wisconsin or Illinois.

[Edit Aug 28: Apparently (though I have not confirmed this) Lin Wood, who is involved in Rittenhouse's defence, Tweeted that Rittenhouse had borrowed the rifle he was carrying from someone in Wisconsin. That Tweet is here. Of course, if this was true it is one more defence against any weapons charges involving interstate transportation.]

Self Defense:

In general, and Wisconsin is no exception, a "self-defence" defence to homicide (i.e. "justifiable homicide" or "excusable homicide") or the use of deadly or potentially force requires several elements. Those claiming self defence must:

1. Have the reasonable belief that...
2. ...they or another person...
3. ...are in imminent...
4. ...danger of death or great bodily harm, and...
5. ...that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent said harm.

Key elements of the defence to hone in on are:
Reasonability. It is not reasonable to claim that you feared for your life when your snotty eight year old cousin charged you with a Star Wars Lego Imperial Star Destroyer at Christmas dinner (even if the Turbo Lasers appeared to be charged because of the flickering of the dinner table candlelight in the translucent plastic).
Imminent. You cannot pop Jimbo next door in the head with your Barrett M82 because he is planning to poison you tomorrow. Well, technically you can, but your self-defence argument might be somewhat weakened by the non-immediacy of the threat (no matter how real the threat is and how deadly the poison).
Wisconsin incorporates these elements in its excusable homicide statute thus:
"A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." (Wisconsin Updated Statutes 2019  939.48(1))
Further, many jurisdictions do not permit defendants to use self-defence as an argument if deadly force was used in a confrontation the defendant him or herself precipitated. Wisconsin is one such jurisdiction, terming the restriction "Provocation" providing:
"A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defence, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence." (Wisconsin Updated Statutes 2019  939.48(2))

Use of Deadly Force By Rittenhouse

[Edit Aug 28:

Wisconsin Courts online provides the following charing summary of Rittenhouse:

940.02(1)1st-Degree Reckless Homicide Felony B
Modifier:939.63(1)(b)Use of a Dangerous Weapon

941.30(1)1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F
Modifier:939.63(1)(b)Use of a Dangerous Weapon

940.01(1)(a)1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A
Modifier:939.63(1)(b)Use of a Dangerous Weapon

940.01(1)(a)Attempt 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A
Modifier:939.63(1)(b)Use of a Dangerous Weapon

941.30(1)1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F
Modifier:939.63(1)(b)Use of a Dangerous Weapon

948.60(2)(a)Possess Dangerous Weapon-Person < 18Misd. A]

The complaint (thanks to @HMCS who somehow found a digital copy when all I could manage was horrible phonecam images) can be found here.]

My own review of the Engagements suggests that it is difficult to argue that Rittenhouse was not of the reasonable belief that deadly force "was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Engagement 1:
Reasonable belief...
In the initial encounter with Short Bald Subject, Rittenhouse can be seen turning at least once to face the pursuing Short Bald Subject after Short Bald Subject hurled an object at Rittenhouse. In that quick turn it is possible that Rittenhouse brought his rifle barrel to bear. Short Bald Subject seems to hesitate, but continues to come on just as strong thereafter, charging Rittenhouse at full tilt. I would be at pains to articulate an argument that Rittenhouse did not reasonably believe that force was necessary to avoid a physical confrontation.
..that he faced imminent...
You don't get a lot more imminent than an adult male charging you at full tilt, especially as close as Rittenhouse permitted Short Bald Subject to approach (1.0-1.5 meters from the look of it).
...danger of death or great bodily harm...
It is entirely reasonable, within the context of civil unrest, mob action, and a lack of any real police presence, to expect that a full on physical fight with a determined adversary will result in your great bodily harm. I would expect that Rittenhouse's own exposure to police cadet programs and training would make this reasonable belief by him easy to establish based on what he may have learned in such programs, but anyone watching the news or even vaguely aware of the propensity for mob violence in cities facing unrest (and Kenosha in particular) would be reasonable in fearing great bodily harm or death if they are jumped in that context. Ironically, Rittenhouse's own words in the prior video interview, that he was armed because he might have to go "into harm's way" is a good piece of evidence vis-a-vis his state of mind at the time.
...and, that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent said harm.
Again, Short Bald Subject was not stopping for anything. Given the video evidence of Short Bald Subject's disposition at the Ultimate station earlier, I suspect any third party will be able to safely infer that the prison-hardened Short Bald Subject did not intend to give Rittenhouse an over-the-knee spanking.

Effect of Provocation:

As I was unable to locate video or audio of the events immediately preceding Engagement 1, it is entirely possible that Rittenhouse somehow provoked Short Bald Subject within the meaning of  939.48(2):
"A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence against such attack..."
It is not impossible to argue that Rittenhouse's illegal possession of a firearm, and perhaps some "assault by pointing" behavior not visible on the available video might have "provoked others [Short Bald Subject] to attack him...." This "assault by pointing" trigger concept isn't a terrible theory given Short Bald Subject's dialogue at the Ultimate station, which seems to describe the origins of his animus:
"Don't point no motherfucking gun at me [homes.]?"
Even allowing this provocation argument, it would seem to be obviated by two caveats:
First the language that follows in the statute: "...except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defence, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."
Given what we do see on video, Rittenhouse retreating, turning, retreating again with Short Bald Subject giving chase until Rittenhouse is cornered, the provocation argument would seem to be defused. More so by the next clause:
"The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant."
Whatever preceded the video we do have of Engagement 1, it seems obvious that Rittenhouse was withdrawing with every means available to him.

Engagement 2:

Reasonable belief...
In the video of the chase immediately before Engagement 2 Rittenhouse can be clearly seen looking behind him, obviously registering the number of pursuers he faced. If he had any doubts about their intentions the blow delivered to the rear of his head by White Shirt (a Misdemeanor Battery in Wisconsin) should have made them clear. When Rittenhouse fell to the ground and turned to face his attackers he had a view of at least a dozen individuals approaching him, including the four primary assailants.
..that he faced imminent...
While Red Backpack is deterred by the sight of the barrel of the rifle coming to bear and therefore receives no fire, in each of the cases where Rittenhouse used deadly force (Light Pants, Huber, Grosskreutz) Rittenhouse fires when contact is either imminent or already initiated.
...danger of death or great bodily harm...
An attempted drop kick to the head (White Pants), a skateboard-wielding assailant fighting for control of Rittenhouse's weapon (Huber), and a handgun carrying assailant that fakes surrender to try and gain tactical surprise (Grosskreutz). Nearby an individual with a blunt instrument held upward. A group of pursuers who had chased Rittenhouse two or three blocks already shouting out things like "Get his ass!" and who swarmed on him when he fell.
...and, that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent said harm.
Rittenhouse's attackers were undeterred by the presence of and then even the discharge of his weapon. Still two of them (Huber and Grosskreutz) attacked.

Legal Effect of Illegal Possession of Firearm on Rittenhouse's Self-Defense Arguments

A number of webytubeintermedia sources make much of Rittenhouse's apparent criminal conduct in bringing an illegally possessed weapon into Wisconsin and staying out past curfew. While criminal acts do have an effect on self-defence arguments in Wisconsin I do not believe they apply here. Specifically, Wisconsin statutes provide:
"A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defence, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."
The only seeming effect of illegal action on the defence of excusable homicide is to strengthen the defendant's duty to retreat. Specifically until he or she: "reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."
In this instance Rittenhouse's amazing restraint, while tactically dangerous, would seem to easily satisfy the additional exhaustion requirement that might be imposed by illegal activity by Rittenhouse.
In fact, among use of force cases I have had any detailed familiarity with, Rittenhouse's is one of the most clear cut in terms of "exhaustion" of alternatives short of the use of deadly force and restraint I have encountered.

Recap:

Lessons learned:

Do not enter a zone of civil unrest alone and/or without support. If you find yourself separated from a group return to it immediately. Rittenhouse was vulnerable to Bald Short Subject because he was alone and without any support at the Car Source garage.

[Edit Aug 28:

From the complaint.
"McGinnis stated that as they were walking south another armed male who appeared to be in his 30s joined them and said he was there to protect [Rittenhouse]."

If Rittenhouse was there with someone he was nowhere to be seen in the videos by the time of Engagement 1.
It has also been suggested by @Granzka and others that Rittenhouse left his initial location where he was guarding a property with others and interacted with police, and that he was then denied re-entry there by the police. This is consistent with other video of Rittenhouse (with hat still on and therefore before the Engagements) being turned back by someone on a PA despite insisting he was guarding a business "over there." It would also explain why Rittenhouse was isolated when he came to Car Source.]
Check your baffles. Check it again. [Edit Aug 28: i.e. "Check your six."]
Even when you check your baffles, and check it again, expect you are missing something in your baffles.
Effective slings are essential elements of weapon retention in CQB and the correct setup is a huge equaliser even against melee encounters with larger adversaries. This is a lesson for me in particular. I have resisted sling systems in the past.
Don't rely on firearm discharges or pointing to deter opponents determined to close distance with you.
Not that you needed reminding, but rifle stopping power is far superior to handgun stopping power. All three subjects Rittenhouse scored clear hits on were out of the fight immediately. One (Grosskreutz) melted down even though he had ample means to continue the fight. Grosskreutz is only alive today because of Rittenhouse's amazing (perhaps even naive) restraint. I don't know of any tactical instructor that wouldn't counsel a follow-up shot to center mass on Grosskreutz immediately after the arm-strike.
If attacking an individual armed with a firearm do not flinch no matter what. If you commit to grappling with a rifle or pistol holder you have to see your attack through. Four larger, assailants, one armed with a blunt instrument (skateboard) and one with a handgun were unable to subdue a nearly prone Rittenhouse because they shied from the muzzle blast at key moments. Had Grosswreutz followed through with his initial charge after the fatal center mass hit on Huber, Rittenhouse would likely have been subdued.

[Edit Aug 28:
Amusing aside:
Interview with McGinnis by Detective Cepress:
"McGinnis stated that he had handled many ARs and [Rittenhouse] was not handling the weapon very well."
Based on the videos I've seen Rittenhouse is one of the best weapons handlers under pressure I've ever seen. So much for McGinnis' credibility.]

Stay safe.

Tag for later reading.  Thanks for this.

I'll have to read this later.

This is a long post but I suspect worth the read. So, tag for later.

Just when I was growing tired of all these threads, this one I really enjoyed reading. Thank you OP!

Thanks for the summarizing everything in one place. It will be interesting how this plays out.

Tagged and bookmarked.

Thanks

Holy shit Austrian thread!

Reading now, thanks!

Tag



Do people even care about bandwidth?

Great breakdown. Thank you!!!

Nicely done.

Jesus.

Tagged for after my nap.

ETA: nap over, good read. Well done.

Good synopsis.  Great commentary.

Tagged for reference

Fantastic thread. Thanks!
Attached File

Tag

I have the lottery thread saved

Nice analysis.

Tagged.

Excellent post and argument for the defense sir

Not guilty!

wow great write up.... thank you for the amazing info on this.... kid is lucky to be alive.

Thats a good read.  Well done OP

Thorough. Thanks for putting this together.

Not a lawyer but I would consider this a solid analysis.

Thank you for posting this.

Well worth the time to read and watch.

Read half of it.

Nice post.  I agree with all of it, except perhaps criticizing his situational awareness, particularly while retreating.  Difficult to watch your six while running for your life...
But I am not an expert.  It would have been better to have more situational awareness, but I give him a pass on that one.

After he engaged the first bad guy, there is very little to pick apart with his actions, as evidenced by the results.


Just my .02 cents.  You appear much more knowledgeable on this topic than myself

Wow man - a damn thesis!

Lefty had a moment to reassess. He chose...poorly.

Excellent post.

The kid is probably gonna get loved tenderly by the govt, but has the govt been doing their job, it would have never escalated to this.

Nice analysis.

Anyone who's viewed all the footage unbiased can see that he was definitely acting in self-defense.

The problem is that I'm also pretty sure they'll use the unlawful possession/carry and the travel across state lines (even though the actual distance is fairly short) to bind this kid up.  Based on the DA's record, it seems a high probability that he'll try to twist those into some indicator of 'intent'.

Awesome post.

Great job. Thanks.

Pretty sure, last I check, IP factor for ARFCOM was like 51.3. It's my trusted go-to, as well.

Now I need to subscribe to your newsletter, but NOT your OnlyFans page.

Very good stuff ????

Skaterboi is all HNNNNNNNGG!

fascinating read. Thanks!

It's like winning the lottery.  

... excellent write up

Tag.

Great post OP, and I hope justice is blind for this young man...

Damn good job OP

Not only does this provide clear analysis, its extremely well documented.

This also shreds most of the media narrative

Confirms what a lot of us have been saying, excellent case for proving self defense, but will almost certainly get stuck with the under age and other lesser weapons charges.

Thank you for posting a great break down of this incident.

Well done and thanks for the effort OP.

Good read, Thanks for time involved...

That was a lot of work.  Thanks.

What does this mean?:

“Check your baffles. Check it again.
Even when you check your baffles, and check it again, expect you are missing something in your baffles.”

HOLY SHIT AN AUSTRIAN POST!

Excellent analysis.

eta: any updates pending for your "You Won The Lottery, heres what to do" guide?