You have issues.

The context was in terms of experience and maturity. When I was younger, like everyone else, I didn't understand the extent to which I was juvenile - but I was because I was young (juvenile means young and not fully developed). Teenagers are juveniles. Some people mature more slowly than others due to circumstances. Is that so hard to take in?

What is it that I said that you find so threatening here? I honestly don't know why you just snapped at one word and assumed I was stating some kind of "law"?

as if a law of some sort — schopenhauer1

Rhetoric ^^

Explain then. I must be more foolish than you.

Anytime someone says “juvenile” as if a law of some sort, I immediately get red flags of a straw man argument- that is an argument based on false and personal assumptions of the person claiming something juvenile. So juvenile that is. See how anyone can use it like a condescending tool of vapid, useless rhetoric? I can tar and feather you with no argument at all..just a word. — schopenhauer1

Juvenile as opposed to mature. If you have a problem with it you have a problem with it. If you are just looking for red flags you'll find them everywhere from everyone all the time.

As long as we consider antiwork, anti-life, we’re fucked. — schopenhauer1

It depends what people define as 'work' and 'anti-work'. Like I said, people often think 'this is hard, so why should I suffer?' It is a very juvenile way of viewing the world. Most seem to grow out of it though, and some cotton on quicker than others.

I believe it was Twain who said something about work and play being essentially the same thing. That is a healthier view I think.

I see but consider physics. — TheMadFool

Not exactly on topic. So nope.

although it seems rather nebulous. — TheMadFool

Because no one is a set of numbers. We have to constantly adjust and readjust, so yeah, 'nebulous' rather than 'rigid'.

To say we lack a measure for work is nonsense. We have multiple ways to measure work (and if we mean work in a 'nebulous' sense or not). Economics is about - roughly speaking - getting and distributing 'resources' (which can be literally anything that is of value to someone/something).

We measure everything by the immediate and long term cost/requirement (be this money, time, expertise and/or whatever else including physical energy).

As we're CLEARLY talking about paid work then if we reduce our hours we reduce our wage (assuming we're doing the same job) unless whoever you are working for is willing to restructure the payment system.

Hence why I am an anarchist internally (at odds with any authority even my own) and generally conservative outwardly, because I've lived enough to realise things are more complex and silly than I did when I was younger so it is sometimes best not to shake things up 'out there' and rather do it 'in here' (my head/myself) and it will bleed through anyhow.

Of course I fail all the time and stubbornly refuse to adhere to what other people do as what I should do because that is how things are done :D

Well, not really. We pay some people more not merely because they work more. We pay some people more because they are good at what they do. In economics (not necessarily mere 'finance') efficiency is key.

The problem is generally that people get 'comfortable' and expect comfort to be the normal state of affairs for human life. Then they demand these 'rights' for free.

I think this problem is related to the one about age. Is time a good measure of age? — TheMadFool

I assume you mean 'maturity'?

This is where the whole Marxist idea gets messy with reality.

Is doing a job for 3 hrs worth the same as doing a job for 5 hrs if paid hourly? Should jobs be paid equally or not - how/why?

Without laws, anarchy. With laws, oppression. How do we tackle this dilemma? — TheMadFool

Emit conservative values and infuse yourself with anarchic values.

... I recommend people who can do so, reduce their needs and wants so that they can keep themselves afloat on less the 40 hours per week, maybe 30, maybe 25. This is no easy thing, especially after 40 years of inflation and stagnant wages. It's like unto impossible in high-cost areas, like San Francisco, NYC, LA, Washington D.C., Boston, etc. — Bitter Crank

Quite often what seems hard is easier than expected. Maybe this is truer for me than others due to mindset though? I generally expect something, leaning toward horrific, for any plan I have. Then things appear much easier than I thought.

A lot of people are simply not willing to take a risk and many more simply keep on keeping on hoping to stumble upon someone they love and pursue that instead of pursuing something that doesn't generally make them completely miserable and seeing where that takes them.

People find it incredibly difficult to have an honest conversation with themselves (myself included). If you REALLY want to reduce your working hours you have to ask yourself why and what benefits there are from this. Followed by 'would I be willing to take advantage of these benefits or squander them?'

@schopenhauer1

I've been out of work now for months (due to the pandemic) and I'm not that bothered about work as I have enough saved to keep myself going. When I was working prior to the pandemic I was working 25 hrs a week and taking a holiday (for 7-10 days) roughly every 3 months. People who live back in my country of birth find it hard to get their head around that I can do this. It can be done but the simple truth is many are not willing to move out of their comfort zones.

It seems too many get stuck wanting things that don't really serve any significant benefit (short or long term) because people are - as a I said - not very willing to have a conversation with themselves.

Can hours be reduced? Yes, if the public simply refuse to bend to the will of the employers and take control of their situation in some little way. Much easier for some than others, but imo it is usually easier than people think (not that it is EASY though). The true difficulty is understanding the use of failure and understanding because it has to be worked for doesn't mean it is not worth it.

I'll amend the opening post.

↪Kenosha Kid It is. One mistake is he had his gun out already then rushed into a dangerous situation with gun in hand looking to help Rittenhouse. — I like sushi

That was the mistake^^ Are you saying this is a 'fiction'? I am happy to provide time marks and links to the live recording if that will help assure you?

List everything I said you view as 'fiction' and I'll post link to video here with appropriate time stamps to each instance. I am willing and able to do the work if you cannot. No problem. This might sound like I am trying to be annoying but all I am doing is trying not to show something false and correct mistakes if I see them.

Transcripts of the parts of the trial I watched? I heard them why would I bother to read them.

Yours seem... well, invented tbh. — Kenosha Kid

How so? Because I don't mention Mr. Blake? You're not making sense anymore so I'll just leave it at that for now if you have nothing of substance to offer other than 'look online'.

Perhaps you'd have a better idea if you had taken the time to watch the witness accounts (both Rittenhouse and Gauge). There is no way you have and refute what I said today as it was a blow by blow account from re-viewing the account of Gauge.

I merely interjected a page or two back to add detail to something Frank said (cannot even recall what it was?) and you or some other person jumped in and pointed out a mistake I had made (I think?) because I hadn't looked at the evidence for a while and confused who the paramedic was with someone else other than Gauge.

To make sure I didn't say anything misleading I reviewed Gauge's account and then gave it - it was not 'invented'.

Now you're not even being consistent with yourself, let alone testimony. I have noticed that obfuscation via verbiage is definitely your thing. — Kenosha Kid

I am just asking for evidence. You've shown me nothing new to date just hinted that I missed something. You said 'FUCK the trial' (incorrect you didn't @James Riley did) but do you not find this telling that the things you linked were in the parts of the trial I watched? Maybe, just maybe, you didn't watch more than 2-3 minutes of it out of context to the whole? I certainly admit, and have admitted, to only watching a few hours where Rittenhouse and Gauge give their accounts. It feels a bit like you are suggesting I shouldn't have watched the trial at all and tried to inform myself. Instead, correct me if I'm wrong, you want me shout out that Rittenhouse is a racist and murderer and went out that night to shoot black people and/or people supporting BLM.

The context that matters is running at someone who has a gun and who you've threatened to kill - who is actively trying to get away from you - and this person then raises his weapon to stop your approach, yet you just slow a little then keep running at them .. well, it is asking for trouble. As for Rittenhouse simply being where he was at the time, yeah, I can say he was 'asking for trouble' too but to a far lesser degree. Simply carrying a weapon - in the context of what had happened previously and what led to the protests - doesn't effect the way the law is carried out. The protests were in reaction to the police using excessive force and worthy protests. They were not protests about people (members of the public) owning firearms. If he took his gun to an anti-gun rally and mingled with the crowds then we have an entirely different context. Yeah, context matters.

IN context to Jacob Blake the law (which exists whether you like it or not) does give police officers WAY too much immunity IMO. I am not going to argue that at all. Nor am I going to argue that there are hundreds of cases showing how even police officers don't really know the law and act in a manner that is baffling.

For reason 'excessive force' is something the police are allowed to use if there is even a slight suggestion of a slight threat to them. It is dumb. The problem is in the way the laws are written and interpreted.

Nothing I have said here has been in defense of anyone. I have merely attempted to report what happened in the trial of Rittenhouse without bleeding it into the reasons for the protests and vandalism.

There was vandalism and there were protests. I know that. Why people were out there is not massively important as it bears no significant context to whether Rittenhouse shot people out of an intent to kill or an intent to protect himself. The general view seems to be exactly what mine was. He should've been charged with a lesser charge because the evidence (as the law works over there) wasn't nearly enough to expect an outcome other than what happened.

We can certainly question the WHY the charges laid out were the charges laid out. Use of excessive force would've protected a police officer in his situation - no doubt at all because the law biases police officers from what I've learnt - but he wasn't a police officer so shooting someone FOUR times even in quick succession would be the most obvious point to focus on when it came to prosecuting.

Why didn't that happen? Could it be because there was public pressure through social media with people like yourself screaming murderer and the prosecution acting far too quickly? Or could it be due to some conspiracy to have him acquitted of all charges to bolster some pro-weapons ambition of the government? Or could it have been in order to show that this guy can shoot people and get away with it as a message to any civil disorder as BAD unless the police say otherwise?

We can speculate ALL these things and discuss it. We cannot claim the evidence in the trial is somehow biased because evidence isn't biased. We can profess that some evidence was missed out or that there is new evidence. If we cannot show such evidence and rely on someone saying there is 'a metric shit ton' alone then I think we need to check ourselves. I even took the 'metric shit ton' seriously (and maybe there is?), but if there are piece of evidence out there that could have effected this case then you need to present it not simply say it is there. I even tried to look for it and didn't find anything much, and the one piece you linked referred to something I heard in the trial (Rittenhouse's account when probed by the prosecution).

I'm not really hoping to reach you anymore tbh but hope that some of this will be read by others here and that they may think twice about blindly accusing someone of something when they've only seen pieces of evidence. I am willing to admit that there are possibly huge pieces of evidence relating to this case that I didn't see/hear in the few hours I've watched.

Overall the whole thing was a mess. It will continue to be a mess until the next time someone gets shot in the US (likely a few seconds/minutes ago) and then continue to be a mess again in a slightly different way. Eventually maybe things will turn around for the better if people keep protesting or making their voices heard in some other way.

NOTE : I made an error in confusing what James said with what you said. mistakes happen. They don't need to be covered up though.

If anyone can tell me who said 'get some' to who let me know. Cannot find anything.

You have issues. Sorry.

Anyway, will look into this 'get some' comment and see if I can find anything given you're unwilling to simply offer a link to it and it doesn't appear in my google bubble.

What does it mean to say I am attached to a feeling as opposed to simply being aware of the feeling? If I feel love for someone, do I need to be attached to that love in order to act lovingly towards them? — Janus

You tell us it is your point.

The water thing I knew about too (from the trial).

The 'get some Rittenhouse' shows nothing atm but I'll look later.

The reason I'm not giving you more is because I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole with someone who's mind is made up; confirmation bias, like talking to anti-vaxxers about science. — James Riley

You think that is fair statement I guess. It precisely these kind of reactionary accusations I hoped to avoid rather than things to turn into 'You're just biased/stupid or whatever'.

My bias is that I think carrying guns around for safety is ridiculous and that US laws in this area are pretty messed up.

I will look for sure. Thanks for having a little faith in humanity :) It doesn't hurt to inform other about information when they are asking for it after failing to find anything much.

I can't believe you can't find anything. Maybe that's because you still have your head stuck in the trial. FUCK the trial. Focus on what happened before, during and after the shooting; not just the shooting. — James Riley

I genuinely couldn't. I looked at the trial and accounts from Gauge and Rittenhouse because that seemed like a sensible place to start to get evidence from. I wouldn't call that an error.

Any law that allows a 17 yr old to run around the streets with a rifle is crazy imo. The law is the law though and my bias is (to repeat) that I think carrying guns around is not the norm in my life experience (even for police). The US is the US though.

As an example it is not possible to feel pain and not feel pain at the same time (assuming it is the same 'pain'). Not that I believe that is what you were saying. It is problematic to get our words around some things though.

Fair enough. You do appreciate that language is a barrier here though so we're kind of in a position where to be more explicit parenthesis is required and/or some distinction made clear bewteen two uses of the the same word.

Is this a game of people going back and forth asking no no, you first . What do you think?

I will go first. It is fairly clear that someone "not attached" could be interpreted as "not caring" because they cannot care about something they have no attachment too. In opposition to this we could also state that having a degree of non-attachment will help us draw a more objective conclusion.

IF however we are saying COMPLETE non-attachment then what does this mean. That needs to be settled first I feel. Agree?

Kind of obvious?

I will simply state I have been in a state where if someone walked up to me with a gun and said they were going to shoot me I wouldn't have felt scared at all. I would have been overwhelmed by the path that led them to that point and been tearful and ... no words ... about it.

I would not call this having 'no attachment' but the opposite to 'no attachment' is the same as 'no attachment'. What seems to happen in these extreme altered states of consciousness is that lines of distinction fade away (or are realised as merely 'lines of convenience' rather than 'reality').

Note: I don't think such states are necessarily termed as 'enlightenment' but what I experienced is certainly something that drew me more towards an understanding of what certain historical people are said to have experienced.

@Tom Storm I think Jung is a great guide to understanding the possibilities of the human psyche. His term of 'Individuation' has something in common with 'enlightenment'. Individuation is about assimilating unconscious content with the ego to form the Self.

Jung was generally against (not the best method of approach) Western cultures reaching out for Eastern mythos as he viewed it as pointless given that Western mythos had enough immediate impact and ease of relation to get to where Westerners need to get without relearning a whole new history.

Keep looking. Take a few days. — James Riley

Here, you can have this as an "LOOK! This guy cannot be bothered!" statement. Here it comes ...

I googled and found nothing substantial. You said there is a 'metric shit ton' of evidence. I have asked for links and cannot find anything substantial. I have also asked what exactly I should type into the search engine to get the results you won't tell me about.

I spent time (hours) watching the accounts of the persons mentioned above (both now more than twice, but admittedly not in there entirety - you can cry out about that if it serves you). I am not going to spend time looking for evidence you say exists but are not willing to share. Apparently you are referring to the 'transcripts' so you will understand that if I watched the live recording of their accounts I will have heard what the judge protested about. If there were details NOT recorded what was said, what evidence was omitted and why would it change the outcome of the trial?

I understand that it is easier to paint me as ignorant and unwilling if you wish to but that isn't likely to hold up if you yourself are willing to point to some items, from an apparent 'metric shit ton,' that should cause me to review the acts played out as they did.

I remember the prosecution trying to show 'threat' and make out Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people to intimidate them. There are claims and tenuous evidence that he did point his gun at some people. That is literally the only thing I can see that you might be referring to from the searches? Let's say he did briefly point his weapon at some people. It that a justifiable reason to run at him and try and wrestle the gun from him and say you want to kill him. Provocation? Something there slightly at best. It would be more substantial if there was some dialogue involved and action (walking towards someone with gun and/or stopping to exchange words). But I haven't seen this shown in the evidence. Was there some evidence that didn't make it into the trial that showed this explicitly or otherwise?

Still only finding what I said above about use of excessive force:

"I definitely believe the prosecutors could have made different choices that would have resulted in some convictions. I think that the way that the prosecution presented their case, forced the jury to either say 'self-defense is real or self-defense is not'. I just don't think that's the right way to approach it," says Martinez.

Many fear the verdict will embolden so-called vigilantes to come armed to protests or even kill more people at protests.

Martinez explains, "To the extent to which right wing believers are going to be emboldened by this, I think is up in the air right now. I can tell you that from what I've seen online It's definitely the case that they take this as a total victory and a total vindication of their position."

https://www.wuwm.com/2021-11-22/discussing-the-implications-of-rittenhouse-trial

and this:

The defence rested its case Thursday, but not before arguing with prosecutors about whether an enlarged image taken from a drone video could be admitted into evidence. Schroeder, following arguments held without the jury present, said he would allow the image, while admitting he didn't understand the technology used by a state crime lab employee to enlarge it.

"With all due respect to your honour, I think the defence is trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge about technology," Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney James Kraus said.

Kraus argued that the way the images were enlarged was the "industry standard" and for the defence to "then try to pretend this is all voodoo magic is preposterous." He said the defence attempt to get the evidence tossed out because it shows "their client is lying ... they are stooping to this level to try to keep it out."

Prosecutors wanted to use the image to rebut Rittenhouse's testimony that he didn't point his gun at protesters just before he was chased by Joseph Rosenbaum, whom Rittenhouse shot and killed. Rittenhouse argues he shot him in self-defence.

Wisconsin crime lab employee James Armstrong testified, under questioning from defence attorney Corey Chirafisi, that the software program adds pixels to the image and he cannot say with certainty what colour the added pixels are.

"If it is not the same as the original and colours were added to that, that is a distortion of what, in fact, the original photograph was," Chirafisi said in arguing to keep out the image.

Kraus called that a "canard" and a "dishonest argument."

"This is just not the age we're in," Kraus argued. "We are in an age where software is able to enlarge and do things."

Schroeder used a magnifying glass to examine the image in question and also walked right up to a large screen to get a better look. He ultimately allowed the image to be admitted, but Rittenhouse's defence attorney was also permitted to question the crime lab analyst about the software used to enlarge it with the jury present.


The judge said he was leaving it up to the jury to decide how much weight to give the image.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/blow-up-at-rittenhouse-trial-over-enlarging-photos-and-video-1.5663622

Which I did actually know about having watched the live recording of the trial. I watched practically all of Rittenhouse's account and Gauge's account. If I missed something else where feel free to tell me exactly what. I'd like to know.

The 'transcripts'? I watched large segments of the live recording. If you cannot say what you are referring to then what am I meant to do?

If there is so much evidence then just point some out for me. Is that too much to ask? You asked me to google search so what words do I need to put in to find what you are referring to?

I'll trying with 'evidence omitted from Rittenhouse trial' now ...

I googled this: "evidence not used in rittenhouse trial"

I found something that basically agreed with what I said about 'unreasonable force':

“I think the prosecution could have just charged that second-degree homicide with the mitigating factor that he thought he was entitled to use self-defense, but that his use of force was unreasonable,” Gross continued. “Ultimately, that was the prosecution’s burden and they could not meet that burden.”
https://nypost.com/2021/11/19/experts-on-what-went-wrong-for-prosecution-in-rittenhouse-trial/

I cannot see anything yet that immediately refers to evidence that would've changed the outcome of the trial in favour of the prosecution but there are items in favour of the defence.

No links? Nothing? If there is a 'metric shit ton' I guess I can find something, so I'll look.

The law has it's own agenda. There is a metric shit ton of facts and video that did not make it before the jury. If you are interested in facts, then you'd have to be really myopic to limit your review to the scope permitted by that judge. — James Riley

Relative myopia. Show me this evidence then. Maybe I made a mistake in assuming that the trial offered up a large enough body of evidence relevant enough. I'm happy to listen and learn about other sources that would've changed the outcome of the trial.

In the short term, probably. — baker

What else could act out better in the short term? What alternatives weak/strong are there you can muster?

Meaning if you don't have the time to review the evidence it is okay to rely on second or third hand accounts of what the trial offered in terms of evidence?

Often such accounts have agendas as people usually have agendas to push especially when the topic involves controversial items such as firearms in the US and protests.

My agenda is to curb the extreme points of view and simply make clear what happened. I think people carrying guns around is ridiculous but that is the law and the US is nothing like where I live or where I am from. I've stated this already as a point that clouds my judgement when reviewing things that happen in the US that would never happen where I am from in the same way due to the laws being different and people not really seeing carrying a gun as a matter of 'personal safety'.

My dad use dot visit the US regularly and one of the people he meet up with regularly asked him how he could feel safe NOT carrying a gun. The interesting thing is some people do carry guns because it makes them feel safe - strange as that may seem to others (including myself). What is more they find it incredible that others don't feel the way they feel.

Humans are weird.

To add I actually gave a balanced account that included claims from Gauge. You have, on the other hand, gone out of your way to paint the picture you believe in.

Anything and everything you say here I cannot trust and I don’t think anyone else should either if they are trying to view this case with balance and reason.

Instances:

First off, R was running away from the group chasing him, and stopped running to shoot one of them. So they chased him again. The person he shot was unarmed. — Kenosha Kid

Well, no. I was referring to the instance of Gauge because that was what was specifically being talked about.

Yes, he was being chased. Why? He slowly and pointed his gun to deter the first person. They kept on coming at him. In fact they got right up to him before he fired. There was also a gunshot fired from behind the guy running at him before Rittenhouse fired.

Yes, the guy was unarmed. Also, he was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and charging him without any indication that he was going to stop. To repeat he didn’t fire until he was directly upon him. Given his state of mind. Running headlong at someone armed with a rifle during a protest (a protest where a small minority of people were throwing rocks at the police and setting fire to dumpsters and smashing property: added to show the potential volatility of the situation). It doesn’t take much to view - in R’s situation - the actions of someone running directly at him, vocally threatening to kill him, not ceasing to pursue after he had had a gun pointed at him, and getting to within reach of the rifle as an immanent threat to his life.

We can certainly question if the guy threatening to kill him meant it. In rage and adrenaline fuelled situations where a complete stranger is involved and openly threatens to kill you, runs at you, and follows when you run away, it isn’t a massive stretch to think that if such a person got hold of your gun he’d turn it on you. Maybe he wouldn’t have, perhaps the chances that he would’ve shot Rittenhouse or ‘craniumed’ him were small. Who really put themselves into an extremely dangerous and fatal situation? Rittenhouse by simply ‘being there’ like many others or someone, unarmed, running after someone with a gun and openly threatening to kill them?

If Rittenhouse had been shot and killed it would’ve been murder. The reason Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with murder is because it wasn’t murder in the eyes of the law. Nor was it against the law for him to openly carry the weapon he was carrying. Nor was it against the law for him to walk around in the street practically alone in those circumstances (it was damn stupid though).

If we look at this as someone willingly running into an situation were their life was in immediate and severe danger and were to ask which person was doing this in this situation it is a no brainer. Was the force used excessive? There is certainly a case there as firing four shots a point blank range clearly sounds excessive. The only real defence here is that he was fearing for his life and panicked.

Excessive force is a point to argue here as far as I can see. The fact that he shot the guy in self defence would be much stronger if he’d merely fired one shot.

Maybe Rittenhouse and fellows had planned this out? Seems unlikely. Maybe they had talked about it and wanted to shoot some people they viewed as reprehensible? Speculation is mere speculation though. When speculation is cast as ‘evidence’ there is a problem.

Next part of the ‘false narrative’ I gained from actually watching the trial.

R ran into a crowd but word spread that he'd murdered someone, and he was chased by another unarmed man who struck him to the ground. R murdered that unarmed guy too. — Kenosha Kid

You’re omitting what you referred to as a ‘false narrative’. If you actually listen to Gauge’s account - and his phone recording - Gauge asks Rittenhouse where he is going (after he had shot the first person). Rittenhouse said he was going to the police and ran towards the police as a ‘mob’ was beginning to form and people were starting to shout “get him!” and someone said “Cranium him!” (Gauge himself heard the ‘get him threats and said this on the stand as well as saying that after reviewing recordings he had also heard ‘cranium him’ shouted). In the video played in caught you can hear while Rittenhouse is on the ground someone shout “you’re gonna die!”.

You’re also making this sound like it was one or two people pursuing him by saying ‘he was chased by another unarmed man who struck him to the ground’ which doesn’t account for the group of people pursuing him and he wasn’t ‘struck to the ground’ by the unarmed man. This is just wrong.

What happened - and what was actually shown in court - was a group was pursuing him, throwing rocks and had hit him to the point where he fell down. Gauge from 30 feet away (by his estimation) then said he wanted to help Rittenhouse so he took his gun out of his belt and ran to catch up with Rittenhouse with gun in hand. Gauge saw Jump-kick man but didn’t see the actual jump kick only this person ‘going over Rittenhouse’ is how he put it I think?

The only armed person who confronted R was the paramedic trying to attend to his second victim, who correctly believed R to be an active shooter. — Kenosha Kid

He wasn’t trying to get to the second person who was shot. That is simply wrong. Gauge said he was concerned for Rittenhouse’s safety due to head trauma (as he had been hit in the head with rock/s and a skateboard). As I said before once he was close to Rittenhouse with his gun in hand he raised his hands when Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at him. Now here is where Gauge believed Rittenhouse had tried to shoot him even when he’d raised his hands as he then tried to reload his weapon. Gauge says he viewed this as he had pulled the trigger and nothing happened so he then reloaded. Gauge then says this is the reason he closed the space between himself and Rittenhouse. As Gauge moved towards Rittenhouse he ended up in a position where his gun was pointing at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fired when Gauge’s gun was pointed at him (and Gauge confirmed this openly in court).

All in all it is quite quite silly to say:

No point addressing this to you particularly, just for the record, but your timeline of events was a work of fiction. — Kenosha Kid

I did actually go back and review Gauge’s account to see if I’d made some error. Other than not being explicit that I was talking about Gauge (who didn’t know what had happened with the first four shots fired and says so in court) I think it is untrue to say my brief remarks are a ‘fiction’ when you then go on to say things yourself that are misguided in terms of giving a clear account of what happened.

To repeat, the evidence is available online. Anyone can watch the trial and the actual account of the witnesses on the stand. I have a feeling, like many others, you haven’t done this and are relying on secondhand accounts of people who say they have reviewed the trial. I have not watched it all, but I have watched enough to know that what I have said and what I am saying now isn’t a ‘fiction’.

Some things I do not know about are the accounts of rocks being thrown and hitting Rittenhouse. I also unsure about accounts of Rittenhouse being hit by the skateboard prior to being on the ground? Both Gauge and Rittenhouse said things in the heat of the moment they don’t fully recall - not surprising given the situation.

That Rittenhouse said the first person he shot had a gun (to Gauge And/or other/s) was clearly untrue, possibly a lie, but he said he didn’t recall saying this and admitted he never saw a gun nor thought he saw a gun. My memory is hazy here (watched Rittenhouse’s account not long after he gave it) as he may have said he suspected he had a hand gun? I don’t believe he did though but the prosecution or defence had posed this question?

How does this tie into my first account posted here? You can look back and tell me if you wish. My first brief account (the one Proof responded to) was a very brief account that I posted just to make sure people knew what had happened and to see who hadn’t bothered to watch witnesses accounts or listen the evidence.

I hope the gun laws in the US are reviewed and changed. I don’t think they will be before the country splits though. I do think the US will split and I hope it does in some form or another and in a peaceful manner. If that happens it will be a glorious thing as the age old paradigm of revolution=war will hold less weight and perhaps other nations will follow suit and the common folk of the world will actually gain more control over their lives in terms of their relationship with governing bodies.

No doubt you are probably asking why I am interested in this trial. It is because I believe what I said in the previous paragraph will happen within my life time and that I expecting a parade of extreme and counterproductive views to be espoused so it would be useful to actually know what the case involved and what evidence there was.

You answered for me directly below. My was to do with the root of an ‘opinion’ so it doesn’t matter that one expresses it with ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ only that the point from which it was originally crafted was.

Like I said anyone can choose to watch the account given by Gauge. It is easily accessible. If you wish to omit certain points to suit your own version not my problem. I was just commenting on what Frank said and telling him what I saw and heard by watching the Gauge on the stand.

:grin:

It is not like it is hard to listen to Gauge answering questions and look at the evidence presented. It is all there for anyone to view.