The FBI is reportedly claiming to have surveillance footage of Kyle Rittenhouse instigating the altercation with Joseph Rosenbaum before the shooting.
This footage hasn't been made public and Rittenhouse's defense lawyers have said that they haven't seen the video.
It should go without saying that, if this footage exists, the prosecution and the defense must have equal access, otherwise there should be a mistrial. No matter how much you may hate Rittenhouse, you have to demand that evidence be presented to both sides equally unless you're an evil person.
If it is true that Rittenhouse was the instigator, then self-defense wouldn't be a plausible defense for Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum.
Still, the problem remains that we haven't seen the damn evidence.
To this point, the evidence that we have on hand is that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and that a person in the crowd discharged a weapon before Rittenhouse turned and fired and killed Rosenbaum. That's not me quoting a right wing rag; that was reported by the New York Times.
The evidence that the public has on hand shows self-defense.
Then Anthony Huber struck Rittenhouse with a blunt object (a skateboard) before Rittenhouse shot him. Another case of self-defense.
Then Gaige Grosskreutz (plausibly the first shooter in the incident) pulled a gun on Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him in the arm. Clearly self-defense.
Believe it or not, this is important and it's not just important because a kid's life is on the line.
If there is footage that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse instigated the violence, we need to see it and know it.
No, walking around with a gun doesn't qualify as instigating violence.
If the evidence doesn't show that Rittenhouse instigated the violence with Rosenbaum beyond a reasonable doubt, he must be found not guilty of murder.
If he's not, we have no right to self-defense. It all gets thrown out the window. If you're not allowed to use a weapon to subdue an aggressor who intends to do God knows what to you if you let him, the right to self-defense doesn't exist.
Before people stop commenting, I don't wanna hear any of the bullshit that I've been hearing over the last year that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there in the first place or that he was illegally in possession of a firearm or he's an idiot or that he's a white supremacist. All of those things can be true without him being guilty of murder.
I'm not defending Rittenhouse as a person or a personality. I'm defending justice. I'm defending the concept of bodily autonomy. I'm defending due process. I'm doing that because everybody that I've talked to about this case pulls a Motte and Bailey because they know that there's no evidence to convict him of murder; but, they want him to die in prison and be denied proper council because they don't like him.
If you're argument ever resembles, "Well, he's a dick; so, he should die in prison." you're the totalitarian prick in this debate.