Read on Twitter
Gonna do a thread and clarify some things about my take on the Kenosha incident, since a few folks don't seem to get my position on this.
An opinion, not analysis.
An opinion, not analysis.
First, the obvious: the kid should never have been there. I'm good with grown men protecting businesses, that's fine. Someone needs to do this if the cops can't be bothered.
These rioters are seasoned agents of chaos, and putting a kid into this mix was never going to lead to anything good. Kyle's parents signing off on this means they have a lot to answer for.
I find it interesting that people want to point out that Kyle lived a few miles away from the neighborhood he was in, but it's apparently cool to "cross state lines"* to commit arson and mayhem, okay.
*This is a meaningless phrase and you should all stop saying this.
*This is a meaningless phrase and you should all stop saying this.
So, we've established that nobody involved in this incident should have been there.
I'm not really going to address that whole "went there to kill people" shit, because it's self-evidently false.
I'm not really going to address that whole "went there to kill people" shit, because it's self-evidently false.
Armed protection of businesses during riots has been a thing since guns were invented. I'm okay with people wanting to protect their assets, especially irreplaceable ones.
It's since come out that a number of the aggressors in this were not great people. All of them had the sort of criminal records you'd expect for a group that was out trying to destroy other people's neighborhoods.
Despite what some are claiming, it is pretty relevant if you've got a history of aggressing against children (Rosenbaum) or women (Huber.)
These were not "community members" who were hurt and upset about black men being killed by cops. They were a mix of standard issue trouble seekers and violent wannabe revolutionaries, many of whom were armed. Don't talk shit about "boogaloos" and hold these guys up as heroic.
(The communist idea of revolution doesn't begin with burning down shops and end with peaceful police reform and community gardens. Half the people defending these monsters are higher on their "up against the wall" list than even I am.)
Watching this go down, I knew right off this was gonna be another Covington type scenario.* I'd already seen footage of this kid just trying to be helpful, giving interviews, etc.
*Some of you giving me crap over this were giving me crap when I was the only one pointing out the obvious about that case, too.
Anyone who pretends we can't know who started the fight between the fresh-faced kid offering first aid to rioters and the belligerent, violent felon who was assaulting people and instigating violence all night on camera is a lying, motivated jackass.
At the time he was shot, Rosenbaum had already made several unprovoked attacks on others, including Kyle. He is on film suggesting mugging the armed guardians for their weapons.
The guy was clearly stirring shit and trying to provoke fights all night. He almost killed a kid, and he got himself and another rioter killed.
At the time he was shot, he had a shirt tied around his face and was chasing a minor, trying to take his weapon. Chance he was a peaceable protester who was singled out is pretty much zero.
As for Huber, I'm of two minds. It's possible he missed the lead-up to the shooting and was actually attempting a valiant act. This doesn't negate a self-defense claim- the kid doesn't need to have read the minds of the mob violently beating him in the street.
Grosskreutz, on the other hand, livestreamed his own attack on the kid. He confessed he was trying to kill him.
(Bragged, rather) He's on *his own video* trying to prevent the kid from going to the police. He incited the crowd to attack him- again, on his own film. He is directly responsible for Huber's death and his own wounding.
