I'm just now seeing this.
1. It was not a traffic stop. Police were responding to a "domestic incident" and were aware that there was a pending warrant for Blake. The car was not his, it was his girlfriend's and it was parked. Anyway, here you go, a summary so you don't have to go to all the original reporting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake
As I recall, Rosenbaum had just been released and
may have just gotten swept along by the crowd.
3. It's evidence of extremely sloppy writing on your part. Either that or deliberate distortion.
4. As far as I'm concerned, a riot is a riot. January 6th was definitely a riot. So was Kenosha that night. We're not in right wing circles here.
5. No. Rittenhouse was never an "active shooter." An active shooter is someone who fires indiscriminately, where "...there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims." That was never the case with Rittenhouse, as is extensively documented. In each case, he was defending himself.
In the first case, Rosenbaum was attacking him, and he fired in self defense.
In the subsequent shootings, Huber and Grosskreutz had plenty of opportunity to observe his behavior, which was not belligerent. On the contrary, he was running away from them and the crowd, and not shooting, nor even pointing his weapon at anyone. At that point, he did not pose a danger to them or anyone else.
Nevertheless, they attacked him.
Grosskreutz did testify that he "thought the defendant was an active shooter." However, I personally don't find that credible, and apparently neither did the jury.
6. You are so sure of yourself! Hahaha! Some cops did throw some bottles of water to him and his companions much earlier in the evening. But after the shootings, and after he tried unsuccessfully to surrender to the police, he ended up just going home; and surrendered to his home-town police the following day. There was no point at which the Kenosha police could have given him any water because he left immediately.
Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone could pack so many falsehoods into a single article, and when challenged, double down! If you're going to write about something, don't you think you should at least get the facts straight? Given your carelessness and ignorance of the facts, it's hardly surprising that you would come to the fantastic conclusions that you do.
I'm not trying to "bolster my case" because I wasn't making one. I was merely correcting the factual errors in yours.
However, I will say this. In my opinion, the jury got it right and the judge's decisions were entirely appropriate. It was obviously self-defense (and for that reason, the case probably should not have been prosecuted in the first place). And the lesson people will take from the acquittal may very well be that they can pull guns on other citizens in the name of self defense. That was already the law, so...
You may be correct in imagining that some will interpret the trial as justifying vigilantism—it does not. If those people act on that belief they're in for a nasty shock when they discover they were wrong. Just as wrong as the people who are alleging that Rittenhouse was guilty—such as yourself.
