Full Video of the Rittenhouse Incident

[Mystic Wanderer]

Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired supposedly never-before-seen footage on Tuesday night from the shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last month that involve 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.

“The footage shows Rittenhouse running with a fire extinguisher. Rosenbaum appears and appears to chase after Rittenhouse when a single gunshot is fired,” Fox News reported. “A surrounded Rittenhouse squeezed four shots in Rosenbaum’s direction. Seconds later, three additional shots were reportedly fired by an unknown shooter. One bullet grazed Rosenbaum’s head while another penetrated his right groin, his left thigh, and his back.”

“There was an enormous amount of video shot that night in Kenosha, mostly by citizens with iPhones,” Carlson said in his lead-up to airing part of the video. “We have video of all three of the shootings Kyle Rittenhouse was involved in. Critically, we also have video of the moments that preceded those shootings, the context.

We’ve already showed some of that video to you but tonight, we will show you more. New never before seen footage of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha. Now, what you’re about to see comes from the non-profit ‘Fight Back’ that was formed by Rittenhouse’s defamation attorney, Lynn Wood.

For the last month, there’s been an enormous amount of propaganda surrounding this case and virtually all of it has come from the left. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts for example, denounced Kyle Rittenhouse as ‘a white supremacist domestic terrorist.’ Now, there’s no evidence that is true. There never has been any evidence, it’s a lie so far as we know. So the questions is, what else are they lying about? Tonight we will show you context from that night and we’re going to let you decide what happened.”

Source

You will have to go to the source article to watch the video; I can't get it to work here.  There is also a transcript of the video in the article.

Also, here is the tweet with the video embedded:   https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/13...03808?s=20


I saw a full video of the shooting that one of the people who worked with Alex Jones put out, but when I went to look for it, it was gone. This is the first time I've seen the full story available to the public again.

If you follow the events, it's pretty clear that Kyle was shooting in self-defense.
Why is he still under arrest? 
I'll tell you why. Because the people in high places are afraid to go against George Soros, the money-backer of BLM. 

It's a scary world when people can't defend themselves from a mob of attackers without going to jail and facing prison time.

Spread this around so people will see what actually happened.

[Wallfire]

Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired supposedly never-before-seen footage on Tuesday night from the shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last month that involve 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.

“The footage shows Rittenhouse running with a fire extinguisher. Rosenbaum appears and appears to chase after Rittenhouse when a single gunshot is fired,” Fox News reported. “A surrounded Rittenhouse squeezed four shots in Rosenbaum’s direction. Seconds later, three additional shots were reportedly fired by an unknown shooter. One bullet grazed Rosenbaum’s head while another penetrated his right groin, his left thigh, and his back.”

“There was an enormous amount of video shot that night in Kenosha, mostly by citizens with iPhones,” Carlson said in his lead-up to airing part of the video. “We have video of all three of the shootings Kyle Rittenhouse was involved in. Critically, we also have video of the moments that preceded those shootings, the context.

We’ve already showed some of that video to you but tonight, we will show you more. New never before seen footage of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha. Now, what you’re about to see comes from the non-profit ‘Fight Back’ that was formed by Rittenhouse’s defamation attorney, Lynn Wood.

For the last month, there’s been an enormous amount of propaganda surrounding this case and virtually all of it has come from the left. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts for example, denounced Kyle Rittenhouse as ‘a white supremacist domestic terrorist.’ Now, there’s no evidence that is true. There never has been any evidence, it’s a lie so far as we know. So the questions is, what else are they lying about? Tonight we will show you context from that night and we’re going to let you decide what happened.”

Source


I saw a full video of the shooting that one of the people who worked with Alex Jones put out, but when I went to look for it, it was gone. This is the first time I've seen the full story available to the public again.

If you follow the events, it's pretty clear that Kyle was shooting in self-defense.
Why is he still under arrest? 
I'll tell you why. Because the people in high places are afraid to go against George Soros, the money-backer of BLM. 

It's a scary world when people can't defend themselves from a mob of attackers without going to jail and facing prison time.

Spread this around so people will see what actually happened.

He will be sacrificed "for the greater good", the "good" of evil and BLM

[Mystic Wanderer]

He will be sacrificed "for the greater good", the "good" of evil and BLM

@"Wallfire", we (the people) can't allow that to happen. It's clear that he was shooting in self-defense.

Another news anchor reported that Kyle didn't bring the gun across state lines; they gave it to him after he arrived. And the legal age to carry a gun in that state is 16. So there really is nothing to charge him with.

If we allow this young man to be charged for murder and spend time in prison without doing anything, we are saying it's okay. We could be next.

IT'S NOT OKAY!

[Ninurta]

My son and I discussed this situation just the other night. He said "my first thought was 'what in the hell is a 17 year old kid doing carrying a gun in a war zone?' -then I remembered what YOU were doing at 17..."

The Left has a double standard. they will put a gun in the hands of a 17 year old and send him off to war happily, but that same 17 year old will be immediately disarmed upon his return and being turned out to civilianhood because he's "not stable enough to be armed". well why in the hell will they put that rifle in his hands and send him off to fight THEIR wars then?

They are currently agitating to give 16 year olds the vote. Think about that a minute - they think 16 year olds are mature enough to direct the course of an entire nation, but not mature enough to buy a gun for personal use, or buy a beer... our take is that either a 16 year old is mature enough to be an adult, or they are not - not BOTH at the same time.

The simple fact is, folks in their late teens are like everyone else - some can hack it, some can't. There is no real age where on one day a kid is not mature enough to handle life, but on the next day, his birthday, he suddenly and magically is. They grow into it same as the rest of us do... and some NEVER grow into it, no matter how old they get.. and some are ready long before it's legal for them to be ready.

So Rittenhouse clearly was in a dangerous situation, and handled it the only way he could to preserve his own life. As far as that goes, it was clearly self-defense. What I question, what my son questions, and probably what the prosecutors are questioning is : WHY was he in that situation to begin with? Who put that rifle in his hands and sent him to war? What is there about him that made them think he was mature enough and stable enough to handle that? Those are our questions, and we do not yet know the answers. Those answers will, hopefully, come out at the trial.

In many states, one cannot plead "self defense" if he was the instigator of the situation. For example, you can't go into a bar and slap the biggest guy there, then claim self defense when he gets pissed off and you have to shoot him - YOU started it, and you clearly went armed and prepared to start a ruckus. Therefore, in that situation, you cannot plead self defense, Self defense is generally reserved for people who, through no fault of their own, are forced into an unforseen situation where their life is in danger. Going willfully into a war zone ("riot" as the news so euphemistically calls it) armed cannot reasonably have been unforseen. Accidentally driving through CAN, but not willfully going in.

So the question of whether or not it was self defense legally will revolve around what Rittenhouse was doing on the Big X to begin with, and why did he not only go to a riot, but take a gun with him when he went. Prosecutors can make a case that he went there to kill, because he went armed into a dangerous place he had no business being in, a place he KNEW would be dangerous or else he would not have gone loaded for bear... that shows "premeditation". Another question is, if he is deemed too irresponsible, then who thought he WAS responsible enough, and why? WHY did they allow him into a dangerous place and send him in armed?

There are too many unanswered questions, and that is why he is still on the spot.

.

[Mystic Wanderer]

@"Ninurta", your reply tells me you didn't watch the videos I provided. All your questions should be answered there.  Or, maybe it was in the other video I didn't post. There was one that said he didn't take the gun with him, someone gave it to him after he arrived. All the other questions are answered in the video though.

[Ninurta]

@"Ninurta", your reply tells me you didn't watch the videos I provided. All your questions should be answered there.  Or, maybe it was in the other video I didn't post. There was one that said he didn't take the gun with him, someone gave it to him after he arrived. All the other questions are answered in the video though.

None of them are answered.

I saw that it is alleged that someone else gave him the gun. WHO gave it to him, and WHY did they think that was a good idea? What is there about him that made that individual think he was mature enough to carry a gun into a war zone? I'm not saying he wasn't, because I don't know if he was or not, I'm saying that we don't know that he was, or why someone thought he was. Those are unanswered questions so far, and they need answering.

WHY was he in a war zone on purpose? He's not a soldier, nor is he a cop or a security guard - so WHY was he there to begin with, and WHY was he armed there? I know as well as any, and perhaps better than some, that guns are for killing folks, and if I go into a hot zone, I'm going armed just like he did - but I don't expect to get out of that zone unscathed, or without having to put some folks down. In other words, going to war is not "self defense" except in the larger, national sense, and even then it's only sometimes - not every war is legitimate national defense. Individually, if you're going to war, and you're going armed, you'd best be expecting to kill some folk, because if you don't they'll sure as hell kill you. If you aren't prepared for that, you'd best stay home and watch the war on TV.

How can he claim "self defense" if he intentionally put himself on the Big Red Dot? Soldiers are sworn and sanctioned by their nation, cops are sanctioned and sworn by their governments, and security guards are bonded by their state - all of those are covered, and may expect to have to respond with deadly force at any moment, but Joe With a Gun generally is not, if he goes into the Hot Zone with intent to kill, which is demonstrated by going in armed. That may be sanctioned in cases of going to rescue someone in danger, but if there is enough time to plan, there are far better ways of doing it than putting a gun in a kid's hands and pointing him in the direction of gunfire.

So - who thought Kyle with a Gun was a good idea to send into a war zone?

As a further example, when my son was 17, he was mature enough to handle it... but no way in hell would I have sent him into a meat grinder like that as a parent, knowing what he would have to deal with, and deal with for years afterwards. Not even if I was going myself. I did shit like that in hopes he would never have to - no way in hell would I have sent him into it on purpose. not without a DAMNED good reason - so what was the damned good reason for him being there? I've not yet heard one - not saying that there isn't one, just that I've not heard it - and I've been following it pretty closely.

I can only hope one comes out at trial, because it hasn't come out yet.

.