Kyle Rittenhouse video and audio analysis clearly shows...

What do you mean by violently attacking? The throwing of a plastic bag?
Now if I am correct the jury was instructed to only consider if Rittenhouse felt that he was threatened. Only did he believe he was threatened, and if so was he justified in shooting three people. And I'll quote, "A belief may be reasonable even though mistaken." So if I believe you have a gun, even though I can't see it, if I believe you have a knife, even though I can't see it, if I believe you want to harm me, even though you don't want to harm me, if, in other words I am delusional, paranoid, sacred, or just panic, I can shoot you...even though in reality you pose no harm. And get away with it by simply stating in court, "I thought he wanted to harm me."

Rittenhouse was followed by Rosenbaum after he left the car dealership and traveled into a dangerous area on his own. Rosenbaum was described by one witness as a babbling idiot.

Rosenbaum throws a plastic bag full of socks, underwear, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and some deodorant at Rittenhouse, and missed hitting him. I see the threat there. Rittenhouse obviously thought the plastic bag of underwear could kill him. Rittenhouse didn't like having a plastic bag thrown at him, nor being followed at close range so he points his gun at Rosenbaum.
You feel that being followed at a protest, riot, whatever, and having a plastic bag of toiletry thrown at you is justification for pointing a loaded weapon at an unarmed individual. I would point out that anytime someone points a weapon at you, you must assume that he, or she, is going to use it agaisnt you. That is the point of pointing a gun at someone. Am I wrong on this account?
So I disagree on the necessity of pointing a gun at someone at this point, but we'll let that slide.
So Rosenbaum sees Rittenhouse point his gun at him, rightly or wrongly, he assumed that he was threatened by that gun and he must defend himself. "A belief may be reasonable even though mistaken."
How do you defend yourself at close range from a gun? In the words of Jimmy Hoffa. "Run from a knife and rush a gun."

Rosenbaum rushes Rittenhouse and gets shot.

That my friend should have been the end of the story and we could debate who felt the most threatened Rosenbaum or Rittenhouse. Who was acting in defense and who was the aggressor. But Rittenhouse did not surrender his weapon after killing one man, did not aid that man, although that's what he said he was there for, left the scene of the shooting, and then after being pursued by a crowd who assumes he is an active shooter and they themselves feel theatened, "A belief may be reasonable even though mistaken,"as he just shot a man and left the scene...he shoots two more people.

Really? Do you think he is a hero for these actions? I think he was an irresponsible child playing tough guy and got himself in over his head and panicked with truly terrible consequences for which he was held to be as clean as driven snow with no responsibility attached to anything he did at all.

 

That's good to hear. However I would disagree on the forced part.

 

As I understand it the statement "I'll kill any of you guys”" was made to a crowd of people, not Rittenhouse specifically, at least that's what Rittenhouse's buddy Ryan Balch said. I don't believe that was collaborated by anyone else. But I guess Ryan Balch, Rittenhouse's buddy, was telling the truth. Why would he lie to protect his friend?

Balch, Rittenhouse's buddy, also testified that he "never saw Rosenbaum strike anyone or carry a weapon."
Jason Lackowski, a vetern described Rosenbaum as a “babbling idiot” whom he didn’t see as a threat, as I stated before.
So he was full of talk. A blow hard.

Now the statement about killing a whole group of individuals wasn't made immediately prior to the first shooting. The shooting was some time after, so how long before I utter the words "I'll kill any of you guys", while I'm in a rage, or drunk, or just pissed off, is it legal to shoot me? A minute? Five minutes? An hour? A day? How long exactly?
I mean while, as the judge decided, I'm out hunting game with my AR 15 in the middle of the streets of Kenosha during a protest/riot? By the way, what was he hunting? Moose? I don't think Kenosha has any moose in town. Maybe squirrels, I imagine there are squirrels in Kenosha. Was it squirrel hunting season in Kenosha that day? It seems two men were charged with reckless endangerment for hunting squirrels with a pellet gun in Kenosha, but they didn't kill anyone so I guess it's okay to charge them for that, if they were smart they would have killed someone and then gotten all charges dropped.

Your argument seems to be, if you ever feel threatened by words, after you crossed state lines to hunt something during a protest/riot on the public streets of some city in the U.S., you can shoot someone. Is that right?

How about the other two shootings?
Also do you feel Rittenhouse bears any responsibility at all? Or is he squeaky clean having exercised impeccable judgement at all times?

 

But Rittenhouse wasn't an idiot becasue he succeeded in killing two and wounding one.
He was the only responsible one in the whole crowd.

 

So we have fools, felons, and pedophiles verses the innocent (not yet mature) armed young boy. The fact that these persons, who were not victims according to the judge, had a few misdemeanors, not one was a felon, is irrelevant, but hey "THEY should have acted better."

And the innocent young man who, by your own admission, set the whole chain of events into motion because of his immaturity bears no responsibility at all 'cause after all boys will be boys, and those fools, felons, and pedophiles should have known better than to confront an immature innocent young armed boy who just happened to be out squirrel hunting with an AR 15 in the middle of a riot/demonstration in the middle of Kenosha 'cause if they weren't fools they would have known that he was going to shoot them; probably mistaking them for squirrels.

Got it.