Ehm, have you watched the videos? Or heard the testimony?

What you’re saying does make it seem less plausible that Rittenhouse was clearly defending himself each time, except you’re not telling the whole story.

Of course things seem backwards if you don’t tell the whole story!

Like, take the Arbery case. “Suspected robber grabs gun in violent altercation, is shot in self defense,” makes it pretty clear that it was self-defense, yes? Except that is missing all the context that makes it clear that Arbery was the one needing to defend himself!

So, let’s tell more of the story.

First, Rosenbaum. He was (1) moving away from Rittenhouse, or (2) taking shelter, or (3) standing his ground, or (4) advancing on Rittenhouse?

He had previously (1) asked Rittenhouse politely to leave the area, (2) swore at Rittenhouse with no particular threats, (3) threatened to kill Rittenhouse if Rittenhouse was alone?

The bag (1) flopped around like a dead fish going nowhere as a sandwich “baggie” does, (2) floated through the air in a playful arc, as empty grocery bags do, or (3) went in a ballistic arc as if something heavy and possibly dangerous was inside.

While this was happening, Rittenhouse was (1) advancing on Rosenbaum, gun pointed at him, (2) standing his ground, facing Rosenbaum, or (3) retreating from Rosenbaum?

Second, Grosskreutz. He was (1) being chased by Rittenhouse, (2) accidentally encountered Rittenhouse, (3) was chasing Rittenhouse.

When he was near Rittenhouse, (1) Rittenhouse was in a commanding position, threatening people with his rifle, (2) Rittenhouse was in a neutral position, safe but nonthreatening, (3) Rittenhouse was lying on the ground and had just been hit by two people who had been chasing him.

Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz when (1) Grosskreutz had his hands in the air in a do-not-shoot position, (2) when Grosskreutz was standing with hands at his side focused, or (3) when Grosskreutz aimed his own gun at Rittenhouse, leaving Rittenhouse only a fraction of a second to decide whether he needed to shoot or be killed.

I don’t think any of these things are in serious question, are they?

How about you paint a full, accurate picture — at least get the numbered questions right, but feel free to add your own details — and then explain whether it’s self-defense or not.

Also, suppose the hypothetical girl posted a video on YouTube of her fingering her knife saying, “All I need now is a rapist to stab.” According to you, now she’s forfeited her right to self-defense? Anyone who wants to can rape her (as long as she has her knife) without worrying so much about her actually using that knife because everyone knows she’ll go to jail for murder (where she very well might be raped anyway, given how things go in prison)? Or do you still say, “no, it is still wrong to rape, and she still has the right to defend herself”?

Now, I’m not saying that Grosskreutz certainly has no claim to self-defense either. It’s more shaky, but look, when you tell people they can run around with guns and defend themselves from reasonable threats, and it’s still okay in situations where there are a bunch of people threatening each other, it’s no surprise that you occasionally get a horrible outcome, is it?