Complaints that the Judge erred in not allowing the prosecutor to describe the three shot as victims are not sound in law, they could not be described as ‘victims’ until the case was decided in their favour, and it wasn’t.

We shouldn't be too hard on Foxy. Unlike people like Paul and SR who wantonly misrepresent facts in an effort to support their ideology, Foxy is merely spectacularly naïve.

Foxy, over the years has shown that she really doesn't want to read widely to get the truth but instead looks for comfort to reinforce her prejudices. After all, who reads the Washington Post to try to get the truth on this? You may as well read the China Daily to find out what happened to Peng Shuai.

Foxy reads those who tell her what she wants to believe and then believes it. There are millions like her. Even after the Rittenhouse verdict came out there were still people who repeated the lies told such as the 'victims' were black.

Its a massive problem for this society. If you have millions of Foxys who think they are informed while being utter uninformed, you end up with an electorate that is easily manipulated.

You end up with Russian collusion hoaxes and stolen generation lies and climate catastrophism.

Foxy,

Much of the information you published is false.

KR did not cross the state line to go to the protest, as he was already in the state, and the breaking of curfew charge was dismissed because there was no actual curfew in place.

KR did not provoke the violence and even prosecution witnesses indicated that he made no aggressive moves. And the only people he shot were physically attacking him.

While I am not a fan of the gun laws in the US, his presence at the riot was not illegal in any way. The violence against him was real and unprovoked and given the history of murders by similar rioters potentially fatal.

KR is not a hero, but neither are those shot innocent victims

Shadowminister, A factual post on the case.

We can continue to argue this case and go around
in circles claiming all sorts of things.
It all depends on which narrative you believe
regarding Kyle Rittenhouse.

!) That he's a victim who was attacked.

2) Or a vigilante who put himself in harm's way.

The jury bought the victim narrative.

For me there's too many unanswered questions.

Sheriff David Beth declared the 7pm to 7 am curfew on
August 24th the day after a Kenosha police officer fired
7 shots at Jacob Blake leaving him paralyzed and setting off
protests, arson, and vandalism.

More than 250 arrests resulted. Only protesters had been
charged with curfew violations, many of them and their
supporters complained that none of the dozens of armed men
were ticketed.

Be that as it may - what I find troublesome is -

Why did Rittenhouse break curfew in a city he did not live
in and "pretend to guard" people and property he was not familiar with?

I simply don't buy his version of events.

I may well be "naive" but to me this entire business makes
no sense. And it does reflect the huge racial divide that
exists in America. Plus the added problem of guns.

Foxy,

"Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed to dismiss a curfew violation charge against Rittenhouse, ruling that prosecutors had failed to present any evidence a curfew was in place."

Therefore he didn't break curfew. Question answered. That rioters were arrested is a separate question.

Secondly, his reasons for being there are largely irrelevant. The rioters attacked and assaulted him unprovoked giving him a legitimate reason to defend himself.

As for his reasons, the rioters were burning and looting businesses in an area where some of his friends worked.

As for being vigilante, the broad definition would include your neighbourhood watch ie. broadly: a self-appointed doer of justice

Finally, one white man shooting 3 white attackers is a racial issue? Why?