Hey everyone me kevin here, so in this video we are going to talk about the kyle rittenhouse case, but what we're not going to do is perpetuate a leftist agenda or a rightist agenda or an agenda of any kind. In fact, i'm just going to provide some insights into some really big problems in our society, and hopefully they might share some perspective with you that could actually affect the minds of people on both sides to maybe see the sides of the other folks, a little bit More clearly, so i'm going to be as in the middle as possible. Now usually when you try to be in the middle, you make friends with nobody, but that's what i do on this channel. I focus on logic.

I focus on making a money in terms of finance stocks real estate, whatever it is entrepreneurship, but i also comment on politics. That's because i ran for governor in the state of california, and i came in second behind larry elder to replace governor gavin newsom. In the recall election, it was very insightful, but anyway, as a result, and even before that i've commented and covered politics a lot. I do not profess to be an expert.

I profess to be somebody who uses logic as much as possible to analyze situations that are happening, and that is what we're going to do in this video. So that does not mean i'm going to provide every single fact in detail here. It might even mean i might make a mistake, but i'm going to do my best to talk about this from a neutral point of view, to see what both sides argue so getting right into it. We know that kyle rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges.

First not guilty on first degree recklessly endangering safety with the use of a dangerous weapon first degree: intentional homicide using a dangerous weapon, not guilty attempted first degree. Intentional homicide use of a dangerous weapon not guilty and a first-degree recklessly endangering safety using a dangerous weapon, not guilty. We know that charges five and six were actually dropped prior to the jury's actual verdict that was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. That was dropped at the time.

Kyle rittenhouse was 17.. There are certain exceptions, four people who are 16 and 17, but anyway, this charge was dropped and number six failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government curfew. This was also dropped, so the verdict was reached after three and a half days and remember that in a criminal case a jury has to come to a decision unanimously. So this means for three and a half days.

This jury had three and a half days to either make a decision and then sit there to make people feel like they were talking or deliberate and ultimately come to a completely unanimous consensus that all of the jurors decided that cal rittenhouse was not guilty. This was not a close call. This was a clear-cut case in the eyes of the jury, but it's not a clear-cut case in the eyes of america. Many people are very unhappy with this verdict and there are some people who are very happy and, i would say, we're probably around 50 50..

In fact, the of the people who are unhappy we had the hashtag sickening trending on twitter. We also had black lives matter. Trending on twitter and then assaults against hashtag, antifa and hashtag proudboys all trending on twitter. Today.

This is the obviously upset side with the verdict. A lot of people are angry and feel that justice hasn't been served. The aclu even came out and said that the events in kenosha wisconsin stem from the deep roots of white supremacy in our society's institutions. It's worth noting that in this kyle rittenhouse case, two non-black males were killed and one non-black male was injured but did survive.

The aclu also said that rittenhouse's trial highlights an urgent need for reform for both police and the criminal justice system. Now uh, it's worth taking a peek at uh, some of the things that we're trending along with this again. This is the negative side and then we'll go ahead and look at the side that is uh that is uh, positive or pro the case and then we'll go through some of the details of the case and some of the issues of the events that unfolded. So, first take a look at this one here: here's one that's trending, with hashtag blacklivesmatter on twitter, let's be clear: if a black 17 year old had crossed state lines to arm himself with an illegally acquired assault, rifle attended a mag, a rally picked a fight and Shot three people killing two of them.

The trial would simply be a formality, he'd be in prison for life. So it's very important that when we see these uh short synopsis of arguments that are hypotheticals that are trending on twitter or or that are associated with trending tags, it's very important to remember that we've got to analyze every single case. The way it happened and not the way it could have happened, so i i purposely bring this up so that when you see these on twitter, i encourage people generally not to share things that are hypotheticals. That's not because we shouldn't opine or potentially consider those things, but in a case, it's important to consider the facts of what actually happened, and in this case we had a white individual attend.

A protest remain at a protest after the curfew had expired, along with other protesters and other armed individuals. The individual. At the center of this case, kyle rittenhouse was obviously armed with an assault rifle which is legal in the state that he was in and ultimately that is what we should be discussing the facts of this case and that's what we're going to do now. It's also important that when we compare non-hypotheticals that we consider that every single case has pretty extreme details that can go into it.

For example, here's another one of those comparisons where we have a photo of a black individual and a photo of a white individual. The top one says: tamir rice was 12 and was killed for having a fake toy gun. Kyle rittenhouse 17 killed. Two people walked by police after killing, two people got to go home and sleep.

Obviously, there is so much more detail here. We're going to talk about kyle rittenhouse's case in just a moment, especially the part about him walking by the police and we'll discuss exactly the details of this. But let's talk briefly about tamir rice, just so that if you're not familiar with tamir rice, you can see. There's a lot of detail that goes in and remember.

My goal is to be as in the middle as possible here and report some of the details that we know, so we can try to put together a picture and see there's a lot of nuance anytime. One of these cases comes up, consider this with tamir rice, so the person one of the people who called the police mentioned that tamir rice or somebody he didn't know that it was tamir rice but described the individual who ended up being tamir rice was at a Park doing what looked like waving a gun at people, it was potentially a juvenile potentially waving a fake gun, but the distressed nature of how the person spoke on the phone for whatever reason - and this is not to make excuses - just what happened - let the dispatcher not Let officers responding know that it's possible. This was a kid with a fake gun and unfortunately, when an officer rolled up at the park and identified or saw an individual that matched the description of tamir rice in a snowy environment slammed on the brakes of his police. Cruiser ended up accidentally sliding 40 feet to come right next, to where the potential person with a gun was to where the officer got out of the vehicle and saw somebody clearly - and this is unknown to anyone.

We just saw somebody clearly moving their hands by their waist ended up getting shot, and so this begs a lot of questions right with so many disasters that happened in the tamir rice case. Just like we have so many disasters that compounded. It happened in the rittenhouse case. I mean consider this.

Why was communication not better to where the officer might have known? This is potentially a juvenile potentially with a toy gun? Why was that not communicated? Why does an officer drive up to a park not on the street uh speeding up to a park to the point where they might actually have to slam on the brakes and slide 40 feet? Why why did they not stop earlier right? There are a lot of questions. Was a gun actually noticed uh? What was was something in the individual's head? We, we have no idea, but what we know is we expect cops to be trained, not to slide cars up to potential gunmen and then go oh shoot. Pop-Pop right now, obviously so many details, but again when we can, when we go back and i'm sort of laying the groundwork for a discussion that we're going to have on kyle rittenhouse. When we go back to this here, it's not as simple as uh.

What three or sorry, eight nine warded tweet here, it's not as simple as tamir rice was 12 and killed for having a fake toy gun. There were a lot of circumstances in the tamir rice case that certainly were not fair to tamir, but there were also some things that were my a belief, not fair to the officer. Why were they not armed with better information? Why were they not potentially trained better for responding to these situations, where their car isn't going sliding 40 feet in front of tamir rice, who could have potentially had a real gun right? There are so many circumstances that go into these cases and comparing real cases to other cases is very dangerous. Comparing real cases to hypotheticals is even worse so in this video we're going to talk about real cases, and that includes the cal rittenhouse case.

Of course, you had a lot of statements come out from almost everybody of the political arena. Donald trump put out a statement in support and joe biden put out a statement of while in or while the verdict in kenosha will leave many americans feeling angry and concerned myself included. We must acknowledge the jury has spoken, but let's now look a little bit and what some of those on the positive side had to say and then let's talk about the case itself, a little bit now. Some say that not guilty is not enough in the written house case they actually at one point.

We saw sue biden trending on twitter and there are many individuals who are suggesting that uh biden should be potentially sued for defamation and so should potentially media organizations be sued for potentially defaming written house, and this was especially in regards to a 2020 uh september of 2020 right before the election tweet by joe biden, who at the time was a presidential candidate and the tweet included an image of rittenhouse carrying an ar-15 with the caption quote. There's no other way. To put it, the president of the united states refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night and some folks are saying: hey kyle rittenhouse should not be defined a white supremacist, this is define, or this is defaming to kyle rittenhouse and, of course, in Addition to calls for potentially defamation lawsuits. We have millions of tweets and comments in support of the written house trial.

Just like we have millions of tweets and comments against the written house trial. This is the way uh politics. Uh is polarized in america today and now we're going to talk about the details of the case. I do want to make a comment that it's probably unlikely there would ever be a defamation lawsuit filed by kyle rettenhaus, because you would have to approve typically financial damages or actual monetary damages.

So an example of defamation that might prove defamation or a defamation. Lawsuit might be, let's say you don't know me and you've never known me and i have a car dealership and you pretended to buy a car from my car dealership, but you never did you just left me a one-star review and said i can't believe this person Sold me a lemon what a scumbag, but you never bought a car from me. You never even came to my car dealership. You never even heard about me.

You just went around and essentially trolled somebody with one star reviews that that were not true. Well, in theory, if that car dealership could sue the person who left that one-star review, that was not true and prove that, hey that day, your review came up. I lost three car sales to somebody else. Well now you might be able to prove a financial damage, so usually proving financial damages is very, very difficult in defamation cases, and i know because i've personally been involved in defamation cases before not regarding business reviews or anything totally different things.

But the legal arena is: is people generally jump to oh? Well? Let's counter sue, usually once a case like this ends. You put it to bed, you want to move on, you go to media. You write a book whatever you move on uh from the legal system. It's just not a fun place to be in okay.

So let's now talk about some of the background of the case and some of the problems that go into the case that make this sort of the disaster of a hotbed evening that it was in kenosha washington. So we know that protests were happening in kenosha washington, two days after the jacob blake shooting, where jacob blake had a knife and went to his car, he was shot seven times by police in the back. He was paralyzed the instance expanded over the next few hours to where a protester started gathering around where the actual shooting took place, and there were protests and marches held in the following days and kenosha. Washington two days later is where cal rittenhouse enters the scene.

Kyle rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, traveled a few miles from his home. It was across the state border, but it was relatively close to kenosha. On august 25th, 2020. now rittenhouse showed up with a medical kit and an assault rifle style weapon.

He ended up killing two individuals and wounding one we're going to get to the details of this. In a moment now he did arrive and was potentially brought to the scene by facebook posts encouraging people to come to kenosha to defend the area or the city. The town against rioters and looters, and to this kyle rittenhouse, responded and again showed up with an assault rifle and a medical kit. The kenosha county sheriff david beth ended up saying that people believed that a quote militia or quote vigilante group, was patrolling the streets.

That night, that's directly from the sheriff uh, the actual descriptive words are very, very much a topic of contention. Some folks say this is antifa. Some folks say proud boys. Some folks say these are just people expressing their rights.

We're going to get into some of the details of the problems of all this now ridden house appeared on video several times that night, alongside some of these individuals who were armed and it's important to know that vigilantism itself is a very important topic. Vigilantism is generally deemed to be a self-appointed non-authoritative law enforcement or style of law enforcement. Vigilantism in the united states is strongly associated with concepts like the citizens arrest, and it's also commonplace for individuals who might partake in vigilantism to flex their rights. This can include things like open carry in a situation that might make others feel uncomfortable because it's their right.

For example, one of the individuals who was on the street right that evening said that their rights do not end where your feelings begin, and this is obviously a twist on our supreme court, who has previously said your right to throw a punch stops where my face Begins and so obviously, when individuals who are expressing their rights respond almost in somewhat of a form of counter-protesters to other protesters who were there in this case, black lives matter protesters. There immediately becomes a confrontational environment. Where you do have this feeling of okay. You've got protesters, then you have armed citizens and then you have law enforcement and multiple times throughout that evening.

We noticed that law enforcement seemed to be essentially on the same side as the armed citizens in essentially patrolling the individuals who were protesting or marching or demonstrating. Now it's also important to remember that not every protester protests or marches to riot or loot or cause damage, and not every individual who is carrying a gun, seeks to kill or murder somebody and not every individual who has a gun potentially doesn't want to hurt somebody. The same thing goes for people who are going to protest. Some people want to cause damage right.

The motivations of each individual person are always hard to determine and it's important not to sort of cast anyone with a gun, with one definition that they're murderers or they're a one group of people just like it's important not to cast all protesters as one group of People as writers or looters right, so we want to stay away from sort of broad definitions when we're looking at this now before the shooting, a conservative website called the daily calder caller conducted a video interview with rittenhouse. This was within a few hours prior to the shooting in front of a boarded up car dealership, and in that interview, kyle rittenhouse said it was his job to protect the business. Of course, businesses didn't reach out to uh 17 year olds, like kyle rittenhouse, to hire them to be essentially mercenaries on the property, but he believed that it was his responsibility in society to be present, and so that way quote if somebody was hurt, i'm running into Harm's way, that's why i have my rifle, because i can protect myself, but i also have my med kit. In other words, kyle rittenhouse made the argument that hey, you know, i'm here to help if something goes wrong or if some madness breaks out which remember when you have peaceful marches or protests, usually people don't get hurt.

What we had in kenosha that evening was law enforcement when curfew time came, shooting tear gas and rubber bullets and individuals, and and this can quickly escalate intention tensions. This is very, very bad uh. In the interview he also pointed out that there were many militia members or or other armed individuals, we shouldn't necessarily define them as militia members, but other uh armed individuals on rooftops, to which rittenhouse responded, that their job is to provide overwatch and protect me implying that He was, he was present with some form of group. This becomes very important going forward, but we also begin to in in this place, take a moment to say: let's ask for a moment what kind of training would we expect somebody to have? Who would be responding? Potentially, to uh a violent instance, what if somebody was swinging a knife? What kind of training would somebody have to respond to a knife encounter? What kind of training would somebody have to respond to a physical altercation if they have a long gun and somebody's right? On top of them, with a foot or a skateboard, we'll talk about that right.

What kind of training would somebody have to actually treat a bullet wound? Having a med kit doesn't necessarily imply medical training to treat bullet wounds, and especially the medical training, to treat bullet wounds under the stress that somebody else might walk up to you and punch you in your face for thinking that, maybe you actually did something wrong or Coming to their own conclusion right, so there is this societal question that when you're in these circumstances of a hotly uh tense evening where people are being shot with, you know rubber bullets or tear gas and they're being corralled by law enforcement or uh they're being assaulted. Verbally assaulted or accosted by individuals on the other side, then we know tensions and emotions and anxieties and stresses are going to be at elevated levels. Right and one thing that i learned when i volunteered in law enforcement, i have three thousand hours of law enforcement. I felt like it was one of my jobs, one of the things that we learned when we were training in law enforcement was that when you are in stress, you fall to the lowest level of your training.

You don't rise to expectations when you're under military style. Stress when bullets are flying, you don't perform optimally. You perform at your lowest functional level. You get tunnel vision, uh, your most of your senses.

Uh go out of the window. Your your heart is pounding uh, you, you have blurry vision, things become a disaster and you really fall to the level of your training, and so, if you're not used to being in those sorts of situations and being able to deal with your heart racing uh, your Blurry vision, your tunnel vision, your your ears, filtering out sound uh, you're, going to have problems, responding and so training becomes really really really important in crisis situations when it comes to especially responding to active shooters or medical emergencies, especially around weapons. So this is something that societally, i think, is very important for all of us to think about that. If somebody is a demonstrator who's staying after a curfew, tensions are going to elevate generally after curfew, no matter what the same is true of people who are responding to, in theory, be there to help individuals uh if they're there, after curfew, they're, essentially walking into an Environment, where most people probably substantially lack training, i don't profess.

Have any training in this i'm just saying training becomes very, very, very important, so uh. The further question that comes out of this is when you have instances of individuals staying past curfew. Should there be more police, or should there be less police, should the police just leave, or should there be enough police to protect against any potential danger or risk that could end up escalating in a situation? In this case, we end up. Finding police was not exactly nearby or present to prevent additional shootings and ultimately deaths in this kyle rittenhouse case, so whether the police was just in a different area or there was not enough police, maybe there shouldn't have been more police.

There were clearly some societal problems here. One of the societal problems is people staying beyond a curfew on both sides. A second societal problem is very likely: a lack of crisis response uh for training from individuals who are putting themselves into the way of crisis uh, while also flexing their rights so anyway. This is where it becomes very important that at points during the written house, interview, uh him and a partner were were seen walking, asking individuals if they needed medical attention, at which point one individual protester actually shouted at written house and said: hey.

You were an individual who earlier was intimidating me to step out of a vehicle you weren't, offering medical attention. Then you were intimidating now cal written house didn't shoot anybody at that point. He wasn't threatened, but there were certainly confrontations right now, just after 10 pm is when the interview in front of the car dealership with written house happened a little over an hour later, around 11 10 or so protesters gathered at a gas station. Just a few streets down - and this is where really the first most critical video footage of rosenbaum one of the shooting victims at the gas station in a verbal altercation becomes very, very important.

But there's also something important to know about rosenbaum before we even get to what happened. Rosenbaum was an individual who was previously seen escalating situations by shouting at any armed individuals, begging, essentially the armed individuals to shoot him going up to people and making the motion of shoot me go ahead and shoot me. It's also worth noting that rosenbaum was an individual who was just hours earlier in a hospital being treated for a mental health issue and suicide attempt. This brings up yet another societal issue, and so you could see the the convergence of many societal issues that we have enough police too little police staying after curfew, training, lumping assumptions about uh people because of how they look or which side of an aisle they stand On right, these are all compounding societal issues that are massive issues.

On top of that mental health consider this in the state of california. We have such a mental health crisis. That individuals who are homeless are told, oh, go, get mental health help but are somehow expected to be able to get clean enough and have the money to get in an uber. Get a ride to a general care.

Physician, get a referral to a mental health care. Professional one that presumably would not be a private care, mental health professional because the individual would be unlikely to afford it so it'd be some form of public mental health care, and so they'd likely have to wait three to six months to actually get a mental health Appointment and then even if they got that mental health appointment, they'd have to somehow be able to make it to that appointment on time when that appointment time comes or risk being back in the loop of a three to six month. Wait for mental health cycle. After again going to their general care physician, this becomes very difficult for a lot of people in our society.

We have a massive mental health crisis in our country. We do not teach me in schools, we teach pe in schools, we teach physical education, but we do not teach mental education. We also do not have a very robust mental health. Well infrastructure.

If you need mental health, help you are waiting waiting is not an option for many people who have mental health. Unless you say you are going to kill yourself, you might get locked up in a hospital and kept there against your will until you are deemed potentially no longer a risk to yourself or others, but that's not mental health care. That's you getting locked down for a few hours until they throw you back out on the street. We have mental health crises in this country and so look at all these things that are compounding elevated stress, lack of training, potentially lack of police group assumptions and mental health crises combined with tensions and weapons.

This is literally a cauldron of disaster. That's what you have you have a cauldron of disaster and all of these circumstances are very, very important. Now. Around 11 30 rittenhouse is uh at a scene asking police for water and the police end up telling written else and his group that the police appreciate the armed individuals.

Some people are going to say vigilante. Some people are going to say armed individuals. Some people are going to say militia folks, whatever at this point that doesn't matter because we're just going to focus on the facts of the case here at 11, 48. For some reason, rosenbaum ends up chasing on video and throwing a bag.

A plastic bag with some belongings at written house, ridden house who's being chased, shoots rosenbaum four times uh, potentially again afterwards. Ridden house testified that he did so in self-defense because he was being chased and after rosenbaum threatened the life of rittenhouse and attempted to grab britain house's gun rittenhouse shot rosenbaum, and this was all testified in a very emotional testimony. Keep in mind that the attorneys defending written house had two mock trials before the actual trial, one where rittenhouse testified and one where he did not, and the defense attorneys found that in the case where riddenhaus was able to emotionally present his fear and his terror, the Jury was much more likely to believe him, and so that's exactly the strategy the defense took now after the shooting rittenhouse is seen approaching and standing over rosenbaum as rosenbaum is bleeding from a wound to his head. In this event, rittenhouse did not administer medical assistance.

Instead, you see him get on a phone call and look around nervously. Now nobody knows exactly what went through rittenhouse's mind at this point, but an expectation is that adrenaline levels were at max that tunnel vision was at max. That hearing was at max and at the same time, other individuals were starting to be seen coming and running towards the person who was lying on the floor. One person took off their shirt to begin administering aid, but rittenhouse did not, and some individuals believe that this is because people began shouting at rittenhouse, accusing him of being the shooter and it looked like.

People were going to start being aggressive towards written house. Because now people who did not see what happened were making the judgment that ridden house was bad, not knowing what had happened and began to chase rittenhouse as he fled so ridden house left, and this becomes a very critical moment because ridden house was present with many Other people who previously were deemed to be part of his group or protecting him by watching over him from the roof or whatever, and there were arguments made, that he was there to provide medical attention. The problem was: when rittenhouse shot, rosenbaum rittenhouse was alone. It appeared.

He was not around any of the other individuals he was with. That means he didn't have support with him. He didn't have a radio that he could hop on to call support. He had no method of crowd, control likely had no way of being trained to actually provide care to somebody he just shot after feeling like he was going to get attacked and have his gun taken away and potentially killed himself no way of responding to potentially other People coming up going, hey you just shot that person, i'm going to punch you in the face and kill you no way of defending against that and so backed into this corner fight or flight sets in it's human nature and rittenhouse, left and ran.

This is when rittenhouse is seen running down the street chased and now technically somebody in theory. If you want to be a sort of textbook analyst, somebody could have in theory, take, for example, california, penal code 837 said something like in accordance with statue or penal code. Yada yada yada, i am conducting a citizen's arrest upon you and in theory, cal ridden house should have stopped. Oh okay, i guess you're arresting me and given up that's technically what books say, but given the cauldron of disaster that we've talked about, it's very unlikely that anybody would even respond to somebody shouting such a citizen's arrest command uh in in uh wisconsin.

You don't even have a specific state statute. You just have common law. That implies that people might have the right to conduct a citizen's arrest but uh. I i can tell you.

If somebody came up to me and said you committed a crime, i'm conducting a citizen's arrest to you. I i have quite a good feeling that my response would not be very positive to that. So the issue at this moment is also - and it's worth pausing here to say how how would things have been different if law enforcement was present the moment the shooting took place and when written house started running, could law enforcement have responded in a coordinated manner to Detain written house and to stop other individuals, maybe but law enforcement. Wasn't there remember that tweet i showed earlier that showed the picture saying that rittenhouse just walked past law enforcement, but remember also earlier before the shooting rittenhouse was being thanked by officers and was given water.

What probable cause would law enforcement officers have had to stop ridden house when he had walked away when cars were driving by him on the street and he was walking by with his hands up? They would have no way of knowing at the moment what had happened because they weren't present. Now, of course, there were other people yelling and screaming that rittenhouse had shot somebody, but that does you no good when officers are inside of a vehicle. So obviously there were no officers at the time the shooting occurred at the time that written house ran rittenhouse, then tripped and fell, and on video you could see that a written house ends up getting what looks like drop kicked by an individual who runs and chases Him an unknown individual jumps to cake, written house and essentially trips over rittenhouse. Somebody else then comes over to try to grab rittenhouse's gun and then hits rittenhouse's head with a skateboard again.

At this point, it's worth questioning the training and the the belief of individuals on both sides. Are the individuals running up to a person with an assault rifle trained to respond to somebody who's potentially committing a crime with an assault rifle and now ridden house? Is he potentially trained to respond to people hitting him with a skateboard or attacking him trying to take his gun away his rifle away? Probably not. This all goes into the cauldron of disaster. So when rittenhouse is on the floor, he again feels that his life is in danger and turns to shoot the person who hit him in the head with a skateboard.

At the same time, another individual who was armed with a pistol comes in at first has a pistol in his hand with his hands up and it's difficult to see. But at some point makes eye contact with rittenhouse. Rittenhouse is seen turning the gun to the individuals holding a gun. The person holding the gun then points at ridden house and rittenhouse shoots this individual in the bicep.

This individual survived the person with the skateboard who was shot died now craig, the person who was shot in his arm testified that he had treated about 10 other people from injuries, including sustaining shots from rubber bullets and pepper spray sprays earlier see. Craig was not a black individual, he was not a protester, he was actually an individual who also came armed with a medical kit and a gun, whether that defines him as a militia person, a vigilante as a medic as a counter-protester doesn't really matter. But the point is: when rittenhouse shot the individual with a skateboard craig, the person who is shot in the arm afterwards is seen flinching with his gun, putting his hands up and responding in a shocked manner after hearing a bullet being fired in the wild. This is not a shooting range, shooting range, don't shooting ranges, don't teach you how to respond to active shooters and somebody actually shooting an assault rifle next to you and so, based on the reaction, you could see that the person who survived the survivor with the pistol Is in shock, and probably also disoriented and falling to the level of his training, the level of his training when an assault rifle goes off is: oh, it's not training, it's bad, it's very bad! Again, the cauldron of disaster.

Now, after hearing that the shooter ran up, the street craig testified that he followed, because maybe his services of a medic might be needed and that he thought the defendant was an active shooter. Both rittenhouse and craig were self-proclaimed medics to some degree. Now regarding why he chose not to shoot written house when rittenhouse shot this person with a skateboard. He testified.

That quote. I spent up until that point spend my time my money, my education, providing care for people. It's not who i am i'm definitely not somebody. I would want to that's definitely not somebody i would want to become, and in that moment i thought i tried to attempt a non-lethal way to end the interaction so now.

In summary, there are a lot of really big problems that we have to talk about, or at least think about as a society, because we might not have conclusions for them. If there had been more law enforcement, would the situation have been better? That is a question to fund or to defund the police. Many would argue that police should be funded and trained more to prevent situations like these others would argue. If law enforcement hadn't been pushing protesters away to enforce a curfew towards these armed individuals, this situation would have never happened either, which makes the argument for potentially too much police.

We clearly have a mental health crisis and clearly individuals responding or being present after curfew in an environment where people are being shot with rubber bullets and tear gas, and there are other people present with knives and guns, probably individuals without training, for responses to medical emergencies Or active shooters should probably not get involved, but this case didn't come down to litigating whether we need more or less police in our society. It didn't come down to determining whether we need more mental health education. It didn't come down to whether we should have training or mandatory training for people with medicaids or with guns. It didn't come down to an argument over whether we should have guns or not, that didn't matter, because this case came down to with the cauldron of disaster that we had did written house have the right to defend himself by taking the lives of two others.

This case did not come down to did written house show up to murder. People is ridden house, a white supremist is written house anti-black. This was not what the case was about. That's what the media portrayed the cases about, but it's not what it was about case was about after the disaster of what happened was an individual justified in killing two people and shooting another, and the jury unanimously decided that, yes, the individual was justified and therefore acquitted Upon all charges now the debate will continue to rage, and this will continue to be a flash point for black lives matter and for uh freedom fighters, proud boys antifa.

What whatever or individuals who just want to carry a gun and protect property or provide medical care or attend a protest because they feel like it or flex their rights because they want to, and that's it if there's something that i missed. I'd love to hear from you, but this is my summation of uh the events that unfolded in kenosha washington. My heart goes out to anyone affected by this cauldron of disaster, and i certainly hope that we can solve the societal issues that we have. Thank you.

So much for watching, if you found this helpful, consider subscribing to the channel check out my programs on building your wealth linked down below with a black friday coupon code down there as well and folks, we'll see in the next one. Thank you so much.