Comments by "" (@4idhero798) on "Dr. Todd Grande" channel.

  1. No, no, no. You missed one important analysis. Rosenbaum may have went after him to try and "attack" him, but Rosenbaum may have only tried to subdue him. Rittenhouse was the threat as he was armed. If Rittenhouse really felt threatened, he could've plead with Rosenbaum and tell him "I'm not looking for trouble, I'm friendly, I'm not gonna use the gun" or whatever. Rittenhouse had the sole upperhand to defuse the situation because the AR-15 was the catalyst to why they would chase him. If he feared for his life he wouldn't even have walked into that area looking for people in the first place. He was looking for opportunity. If Rosenbaum was armed, then yes, it would make sense as to why he acted in self-defense.
    4
  2. Rittenhouse could've plead with Rosenbaum if he wasn't looking for trouble, aka opportunity. He could've put his hand up and told him "Look, I'm not looking for trouble," but if he was scared, then why walk around armed looking for people in the first place if the fear for his life would almost always be imminent?
    2
  3. No, no, no. There are so many things wrong with vigilanteism. That's what law enforcement is for, or if too weak, call the national gaurd.
    1
  4. That's what law enforcement is for, unless you're the owner of the property and legally can carry, and circumstances allows it.
    1