Try to keep up.
“Rittenhouse’s home is a little over 20 miles from the incident, so he had to make a concerted effort to go there.”
He worked there, daily. He was there that day working as a lifeguard. He had friends there. He was close to business owners there.
Many of us think nothing of driving 20 miles to the place much of our current lifestyle takes place.
“In Wisconsin, no one under 18 is allowed to purchase or bear a non concealed gun.”
For all legal purposes, the rifle was owned and kept by a friend in-state.
Regarding age, the law in question is poorly worded, the action could be construed as covered by the “hunting” clause (funny/outrageous as that may seem, legal definitions are very precise and often do not apply as normal colloquial use would (such as under NY law, a rifle is not a firearm)). At one extreme the violation would be nothing more than a misdemeanor, and at the other the law is completely invalidated because, under the “doctrine of competing harms”, his possession of the rifle was obviously justified by his need to use it to defend his life.
“There is nothing to indicate Rosenbaum was armed”
Trial just examined the FBI infrared surveillance video, demonstrating that 3 people threatened, chased, and attacked Kyle.
A shirtless man screaming threats and throwing things in assault is not to be ignored.
When cornered by said man, a shot WAS fired, in close range, at Kyle.
Unclear as to whether Rosenbaum was armed, with Rosenbaum closing distance (toward a clearly armed intended victim), with gunshots indicating a violent attack was under way focused on him, and having been cornered with no other option - Kyle fired at an assailant.
Members of an attacking mob are responsible for the actions of the mob.
Kyle had reason to believe he was under lethal attack, and that stopping Rosenbaum would stop the attack.
Upon being shot, Rosenbaum ceased his assault (yes, legal definition of assault), the lethal threat ceased (shooter stopped shooting), and Kyle was able to exit the situation.
“shot two to death, at least one unarmed, and wounding a third”
First: a chronic child rapist, having just left a mental hospital he was in for a suicide attempt, and having been thrown out of his baby’s mother’s home due to a restraining order for beating her bloody; a violent person looking for trouble by wandering thru a criminal arson-inclined mob screaming “SHOOT ME N*****” repeatedly at random people, and running after and assaulting a complete stranger who was carrying a rifle. One may be a lethal threat despite being “unarmed”.
Second: attempted to repeatedly bludgeon Kyle, as he lay on asphalt, with a large heavy blunt object. Far more people are beaten to death with blunt objects than are killed with rifles.
Third: attempted to kill Kyle with a handgun, and while recovering in the hospital clearly stated his wish that he had succeeded in killing Kyle.
I just found and read the indictment.
Among other exonerating content, it states “Rosenbaum was trying to get the defendant’s gun.”
If you, shirtless, are chasing a stranger, screaming threats at the stranger, throwing things at the stranger, and corner the stranger, all while an accomplice proceeds to shoot at the stranger, attempting to take the stranger’s weapon puts you in the category of “armed threat”.
“But...!” you cry. Many object to gun ownership precisely with “your unarmed attacker can just take your gun from you and kill you with it” (which, BTW, happens to many police) - as such, you cannot claim that Rosenbaum was “unarmed”, having ability and opportunity and intent to take the weapon with lethal malicious intent.