A) I consider it a provocation not due to the act itself (running), but due to the act in the context of what came before it (shooting someone). Without the context the question changes, so I'm not sure how any of your questions here are relevant.

B) IMO, an individual cannot make decisions based on what may happen without strong evidence backing up that hypothesis. Feelings alone don't cut it.

C) Reckless to yourself, possibly, but there is always assumed risk when engaging a criminal (or presumed criminal) but that doesn't make it immoral. As for whether I believe that Kyle should have left his gun on the ground, that wouldn't be my first choice, but if it came to that, any responsible gun owner should know how to quickly disarm their weapon so others wouldn't be able to pick it up and use it. 

So are you saying that anyone walking around in your neighborhood with their gun in their hand does not present a clear and present danger.  As a gun owner, I would never just walk around with my gun in my hand unless I mean to use it.  Gun on your back, Gun holstered means you are just carrying.  Gun in your hand with no one knowing your intent says, I am looking for action.  Kyle did not have to start anything, he needed to have his gun not in his hands walking around like he is in some video game.  What you do not understand, is that Kyle was lucky, he ran up on the right people because you can believe there would be people who would not hesitate to pull that trigger.  He also got lucky when he ran up on the right police because also with gun in hand, they could easily have recognize him as a threat and dropped him.  Anyone of the rioters could have claim self defense if he pointed his gun at anyone, anytime during this incident.

If Kyle was smart he would have left when he saw any rioting and alerted the cops.  It just so happen this time he was the killer, he might not be so lucky the next time. 

You talking about you have the right but this does not prove anything beyond that everyone will have the same right.  Whoever shoots first gets to go home.  I can assure you if something jumps again and Kyle believing he is in call of duty walks around with his gun in his hands looking for action, he might be the one getting his head shot off when up against someone who will not hesitate to pull the trigger.

A) Right, the context of Kyle shooting someone WHO HAD BEEN CHASING HIM up to then. Surely then deciding to chase Kyle with more participants is an even greater provocation for Kyle? I remind all that Kyle was someone who showed great restraint by not firing after a hit to his head during said chase but only firing again AFTER he had fallen and was subjected to a kick, a skateboard swing, and another gunman approaching him.

B) I think that depends on what decision is being made: do I need strong evidence to decide to try to get away from what I feel to be a volatile situation? Not necessarily, a gut feeling can be enough if you're trying to just GET AWAY from any additional confrontation. Do I need strong evidence to decide to open fire on another person? ABSOLUTELY! Big difference between running away from a scene and the decision to open fire with an ar-15.

I consider a persistent foot chase to be strong evidence that someone could mean me harm. Considering Rosenbaum's prior aggressive behavior, I doubt Kyle liked being chased by Rosenbaum and I would not want that guy chasing me in the dark of night either. I would be scared of Rosenbaum too, the man seemed itching for a fight.

C) Well I guess we can both agree some of Kyle's pursuers/attackers learned about recklessness and assumed risk the hard way didn't they? And a responsible gun owner would NEVER leave their firearm out of their sight or possession. They would keep it with themselves at all times and attempt to maintain full control of it at all times.

edit: I don't know why the above is highlighted. I think it's a bug or something...

Yea, I can see you didn't watch the trial. Kyle did have it on his back for most of the day. It wasn't until shit started going down that he took it off his back. He also never did point his gun til threatened. 

And go to the cops? You mean the ones who weren't doing shit and letting the community burn. Probably told to stand down or do the minimal. Of course, if the cops shot a bunch of violent rioters, you'd be bitching, too.

Hilarious that you're on a video game board pushing that supposed Right-wing puritan belief that video games cause people to be violent. If anything, Kyle was incredibly disciplined with that gun. 100% of the people who didn't attack Kyle are still alive. Hell, a lot of the people who got in some cheap shots are alive, too.

Again, sorry, not sorry, it didn't go your way and we actually have the right to defend ourselves, our property, and our community.

Let's just say, you may want to look into what happens when you give the government too much power.

And oooo, not the far right. You mean the the ones that have a shit ton of power in America? Oh wait, that's the Left. Hollywood, colleges, the media, and, for now, the Federal government.  The far right has no power in America. And you guys acting like they do or saying people better be more Left leaning or we'll be associated with them isn't working anymore. We're done with the lies.

Apologies, I was typing up a response on Saturday morning, but my progress was not saved and I simply did not have time to circle back until now.

The individual you are thinking of is Joshua Ziminski, not Joseph Rosembaum.  Three seconds prior to Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum, Ziminski fired a "warning shot" into the air from 100 feet away (there is video evidence confirming the shot was not directed at Rittenhouse).  At this point, both Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse heard gunfire.  What was running through their minds in those last few seconds we can only speculate on, but only Rittenhouse lived to tell his side.  

The evidence of Rittenhouse and Ziminski's interactions prior to the shooting is limited and fragmented, so even though one would think his involvement would have been critical to the trial, neither the prosecution nor the defense found it beneficial to bring him in to testify.  That's largely because both sides found him to be unreliable.  He is also going to trial for his own charges related to that night.  The question on everyone's mind is why he felt compelled to fire a warning shot, but at the moment, there isn't really enough evidence to do more than speculate.

There is a lot of misinformation surrounding what happened leading up to the shootings (as well as what went down during them).  That's why it's so hard to even discuss the facts that we CAN confirm.  People are entering these discussions with completely different narrative of what went down that night.

As an aside, I want to be clear that I have no notion that Rosenbaum or Ziminski were good people.  Ziminski contributed to the chaos that led to three people getting shot, and he deserves to be punished for that.  But Ziminski WAS NOT the person who shot at other people.

So because rioting was going on... it gives someone a license to kill people?  I did not realize that not shooting other people required an above average amount of tolerance?

Sarcasm aside, I see a lot of "the media lied about Kyle" posts here and on social media.  The notion that the media lied about Kyle is propaganda.  I consume a lot of media that is marketed towards centrist and left-wing audiences, and other than reporting on the limited information that was available at the time, I do not recall any sensationalist articles claiming he was a murderer that went out hunting for protesters (although Kyle did make some statements prior and post the incident that certainly did not help his case in the court of public opinion).  I do recall a few sensationalist posts shared on Facebook around that time (as well as cringy far-left content creators trying to capitalize on the outrage), but I saw the opposite misinformation from my conservative friends and family too.  It really ran the whole gamut.

That's not to say there weren't distasteful editorial or opinion pieces from more mainstream sources, or the occasional reporting of information that later proved to be factually inaccurate.  But anecdotally, I did not encounter any of those.  And that's part of the insidiousness of the claim.  It's nigh impossible to refute or support, but people believe it because the narrative is convenient.  Someone can compile a list of "problematic articles", but people are going to just disagree on the nuance of language, for example, crying bias over Kyle being referred to as a "killer".

And all of this is just an excuse to claim it's the medias fault, rather than acknowledge that half of the country's outrage is actually being fueled by differing opinions on the roles guns should play in society, the value of life, and the intersection of race/justice/police (I acknowledge that last point is loaded, because people are quick to point out that everyone was white in the Kenosha incident, but the contrast of the incident is hard to ignore considering the cultural climate the event took place in).  To put it more simply, people are not okay with the idea of vigilantes with guns policing our towns.  People are not okay with them getting to use the law as a shield when they get into trouble with people who are not okay with them being vigilantes.

Proper context?  The proper context is that no one else died that night.  Riot or protest be damned.

There were 25 deaths over the course of 6 months during the 2020 protests, and Rittenhouse nearly accounts for 1 in 10.  An estimated 25 million people participated in the protests over the course of half a year.  There were an estimated $1-2 billion in damages from riots associated with the protests.  Most of that damage occurred in hot spots ($50 million in damages in Kenosha alone), and typically occurred during the chaos that would ensue AFTER police cracked down on demonstrations.  This was why the media often called the protests "largely peaceful".  But also, insert obligatory statement on how "property is not people".

I have no intention of defending rioters from legal consequences.  I merely ask that we as a society have a bit more respect for life when going into politically motivated conflicts.  De-escalation through prevention.  Anecdotally, I live in a major US city, and we were more worried about counter protesters coming in from out of town.  For whatever reason, the blue cities were supportive of the protests, and the red rural communities surrounding them were opposed.  And they would come into our streets with their guns... to protect us from ourselves I guess?  The riot narrative was largely overblown and fearmongered by the right-wing media, and I think that fear drove a lot of people to be nutty.

The reason my "judgment cleanly shifts from half-hearted to resolute" is because I was referring to two different details.  I do not want to imply that Rosenbaum is innocent of his involvement in the events that transpired.  But Rittenhouse was the one with the weapon, and the one who killed someone.  Rittenhouse not having a gun would have 100% changed the dynamics of that night, and crucially, would have given Kyle no means of lethal force.  Nor could Kyle have had the fear that his lethal weapon would have been taken and turned in his own direction.

Three people who actually came at him within 3 feet or less, with clear intent to harm, got shot.

Did he intentionally shoot anyone else that was going else where?

Also, you ignored my example of idiots like Binger who do not know how to handle a gun. This may come as a shock to folks like you but you can have something dangerous and yet wield it properly if you have proper training.

This is how I got banned from before but I'm gonna say it again. If Hiku or some other moderator twists what I say again and decides to ban me again, so be it. I barely give any shit what happens to my account on this forum.

So I'm going to hypothetically speak about this circumstance again. This is the same argument I gave last year.

Once again, when people burn down things that I've worked so hard for years, earnestly through honest means, and is my main source of keeping me financially afloat, they best put a bullet into my head while they burn it down or else I put one on theirs.

Just because these are "material" things that got lost doesn't mean it may not drive me into so much hardship that I may as well want to be dead. This is not an act of god that I can just let it slip. This is some fucking self-righteous idiot thinking he has the right to do it when I had nothing to do with what he's "protesting" about. Then again, I guess someone committing suicide because of such is the best outcome these asshole would want. Less chance exposure to the real victim. Media can use the victim as a puppet to say things they may or may not say.

It's not about differing opinions when you have the media companies with a very broad viewership or readership are preaching things that never happened in the trial. All just to keep the narrative alive. Not to mention race baiting by injecting inexistent racial elements into this case. It's not even the media only doing this. Hollywood personalities, sports athletes, senators, the fucking POTUS. They all keep making statements as if there were racial factor in this god damn incident when it's 3 white men that got shot. Even The Independent made a Freudian slip and made it so that Kyle Rittenhouse incident involved 3 black men getting shot.

So please. Spare me the bullshit.

I'm gonna have a bit more sympathy for someone out there protecting their own property, particularly their home.  Otherwise, I'm gonna trust that they have insurance and can weather the unfortunate turn of events.  If you seriously think it is worth risking your life in defense of things, well, that's your prerogative.  But we as a society still reserve the right to judge your actions.

The reality was that the vast majority of people and property were at minimal to no risk of damage over the course of the summer of 2020.  I'm sorry if you were negatively impacted by the riots in any shape or form, but I suspect most people are outraged by the hypothetical, not the actual scenario.  There are legal remedies to damages that were sustained.  But we unfortunately cannot bring the dead back to life.  While I am disappointed in the results of the Rittenhouse trial, I would rather see legislative reform rather than outrage leading people down a path to anarchy.  If both sides do not think the law can protect them, whether physical, property, or otherwise, we go down a dangerous path.

---

I cannot really comment on Binger, because myself, like many Americans, do not really care to educate myself on gun operation.  I do not need to know how to operate a firearm to know how dangerous they are.  I can see the data.  I have talked to a number of Americans who think that me not knowing something about gun operation is a "gotcha" moment.  I do not give two-shits about how to operate a gun.  It's a deadly weapon.  I have no need for such an instrument.

---

For your last point, to deny the race element in this entire discussion is kind of "missing the point"... and also assuming all of this happened in a vacuum.  This was a racially charged issue from its inception.  As another commenter pointed out above, this particular night of rioting was occurring during demonstrations following the Jacob Blake shooting.  Rittenhouse was there with a gun to assist police officers in policing demonstrations that were intended to protest excessive use of force by police and over-militarization of police, particularly against minorities and people of color (this was the political speech I was referencing in my initial post).  The fact that police did not see Rittenhouse as a threat, in contrast to the widely publicized incidents of police being too quick to shoot now and ask questions later when dealing with people of color... just seemed to provide even more evidence for people that police are crooked.

Not to mention Rittenhouse getting all buddy-buddy with white nationalists... Yikes.

I cannot convince you that media is not biased.  But there is a distinction between news reporting, editorializing, and entertainment.  None of the media I consumed was "preaching things that never happened", but there was investigative reporting, interviews, analyses of the trial, etc.  All of this was evidence-based or clarified that "details were not verified".  The more outlandish things I saw were always on social media (left and right) about completely fabricated details that I could not fathom where they were coming from.

Lol, who's playing a game, now. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Locking down and mandating the jab. You'd think you guys would be more sensitive to the government seizing control, given the history of that area, but oh well. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Oh no, someone on the Left has accused me of being far-right for disagreeing with them. Whatever shall I do? Oh yea, not care. It's almost like you guys have overplayed that hand too many times for it to even mean anything. Like I said, we don't care. We're done with the lies.

No, any sane person wants the cops to keep innocent people safe, no matter the cost to the offender.  Would it be nice if no one had to die? Sure. But the world isn't some Care Bear special.

And anything can be deadly. Yes, even a skateboard counts. People have died from being hit by those.  Hell, more people die by fists and feet than by AR-15s each year.