Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:


A kick to the face =/= a bullet from a machinegun.

What?


???

Are you daft? It means that someone kicking you in the face doesn’t mean you now have the right to shoot with a military grade weapon.


I think you are dramatically underestimating the risk of a kick to the head. People can, and have, died as a result of such kicks. Under no circumstances should you be delivering a kick to someone's head when they are on the ground unless you are prepared to live with the consequences of killing them. And you should absolutely be prepared to be shot if the person on the ground is holding a firearm. And by the way, there is no such thing as a "military grade" weapon. That is a made-up term used by those with no familiarity with firearms.
Anonymous
Yes, call it a military cosplay weapon.
Anonymous
More people die of being beaten to death than being shot by an AR-15 every year.

Here's the thing about self-defense. You have the right to use superior force to defend yourself. That means that if someone is going to try beating you up with their feet or hands, you are not precluded from using superior force to stop the threat. Yes, you can die from being beaten to death. This whole narrative that you can only fight with what the aggressor is using is ridiculous.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:


A kick to the face =/= a bullet from a machinegun.

What?


???

Are you daft? It means that someone kicking you in the face doesn’t mean you now have the right to shoot with a military grade weapon.


I think you are dramatically underestimating the risk of a kick to the head. People can, and have, died as a result of such kicks. Under no circumstances should you be delivering a kick to someone's head when they are on the ground unless you are prepared to live with the consequences of killing them. And you should absolutely be prepared to be shot if the person on the ground is holding a firearm. And by the way, there is no such thing as a "military grade" weapon. That is a made-up term used by those with no familiarity with firearms.


An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. That is a talking point. No military would use it. It is a less effective mock military weapon I guess. And yes a kick to the face can be legally responded to by deadly force if the person being kicked is reasonably in fear for their life.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:


If the defense got the information in time to do something with it -- likely no issue on appeal.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:At this moment, most of us are "kick man" where Rittenhouse is concerned.


Oh, how cute. Yes - a man with a lengthy criminal record. Someone that everyone strives to emulate.

So we now know there was a domestic abuser, a pedophile, a drunk driver with domestic abuse charges, and another domestic abuser with a lengthy rap sheet including felony convictions for car theft, drug possession, ID theft, and escaping custody who all attacked Rittenhouse.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Why isn't this jury sequestered? I can't remember the last time I heard about a jury being sequestered. Do they just not do that anymore?
When was the last notable trial with a sequestered jury?


This is not done a lot anymore. Trial lawyers are split as to whether it is a good or bad thing.
Anonymous
"Reasonable people don't think 17-year-old, untrained wannabes armed with semi-automatic rifles should be patrolling our nation's streets. That has zero to do with the right for someone to have a handgun in their home for self-protection, or even a person with a permit to carry a handgun.

If Kyle didn't have his AR-15, none of this would've happened, starting with Rosenbaum chasing him through the parking lot."

I'm not saying I would advise my 17 year old brother to do what KR did. Absolutely not. But what he was doing-being there with a gun, while unwise, wasn't illegal. When he finally ended up being chased and attacked, he had the right to self defense.

This was DAY 3 of violent, burning riots in Kenosha. The thugs who were present that night were bad people. Don't pretend that these individuals were simply protestors trying to take down a guy with a gun like that idiot Binger suggested.

No one can counter my argument that self defense is predicated on the theory you must use like force. Far from it, I have the right to use superior force to put down a threat. So those saying he shouldn't have used a gun are just wrong on this point.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:


A kick to the face =/= a bullet from a machinegun.

What?


???

Are you daft? It means that someone kicking you in the face doesn’t mean you now have the right to shoot with a military grade weapon.


I’m a “lefty” who would like much tighter gun control. I hate that it’s legal for people with no formal training to walk around with AR-15s, and I’m horrified that it’s legal for a minor to carry a gun, except when going hunting with a responsible adult.

That said, you’re crazy if you think someone who has a gun should not be able to use it when they’re being beaten or kicked savagely.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:At this moment, most of us are "kick man" where Rittenhouse is concerned.


Oh, how cute. Yes - a man with a lengthy criminal record. Someone that everyone strives to emulate.

So we now know there was a domestic abuser, a pedophile, a drunk driver with domestic abuse charges, and another domestic abuser with a lengthy rap sheet including felony convictions for car theft, drug possession, ID theft, and escaping custody who all attacked Rittenhouse.


Or…were they brave men who sacrificed their lives to protect others in the area?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:"Reasonable people don't think 17-year-old, untrained wannabes armed with semi-automatic rifles should be patrolling our nation's streets. That has zero to do with the right for someone to have a handgun in their home for self-protection, or even a person with a permit to carry a handgun.

If Kyle didn't have his AR-15, none of this would've happened, starting with Rosenbaum chasing him through the parking lot."

I'm not saying I would advise my 17 year old brother to do what KR did. Absolutely not. But what he was doing-being there with a gun, while unwise, wasn't illegal. When he finally ended up being chased and attacked, he had the right to self defense.

This was DAY 3 of violent, burning riots in Kenosha. The thugs who were present that night were bad people. Don't pretend that these individuals were simply protestors trying to take down a guy with a gun like that idiot Binger suggested.

No one can counter my argument that self defense is predicated on the theory you must use like force. Far from it, I have the right to use superior force to put down a threat. So those saying he shouldn't have used a gun are just wrong on this point.


I mean, yes, it was. There was a curfew for a reason. Every single person out at night then was up to no good. Including the kid with the gun. Including the rest of them. They were all out in violation of curfew, looking for trouble. They all found it. And one of them is trying to get around the consequences of his actions.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:"Reasonable people don't think 17-year-old, untrained wannabes armed with semi-automatic rifles should be patrolling our nation's streets. That has zero to do with the right for someone to have a handgun in their home for self-protection, or even a person with a permit to carry a handgun.

If Kyle didn't have his AR-15, none of this would've happened, starting with Rosenbaum chasing him through the parking lot."

I'm not saying I would advise my 17 year old brother to do what KR did. Absolutely not. But what he was doing-being there with a gun, while unwise, wasn't illegal. When he finally ended up being chased and attacked, he had the right to self defense.

This was DAY 3 of violent, burning riots in Kenosha. The thugs who were present that night were bad people. Don't pretend that these individuals were simply protestors trying to take down a guy with a gun like that idiot Binger suggested.

No one can counter my argument that self defense is predicated on the theory you must use like force. Far from it, I have the right to use superior force to put down a threat. So those saying he shouldn't have used a gun are just wrong on this point.


I mean, yes, it was. There was a curfew for a reason. Every single person out at night then was up to no good. Including the kid with the gun. Including the rest of them. They were all out in violation of curfew, looking for trouble. They all found it. And one of them is trying to get around the consequences of his actions.


Right but that is the question. Are there legal consequences for his actions? We will see what the jury says.
Anonymous
If you're equating a kid who was trying to deter thugs from burning down businesses in Kenosha with the thugs who were there for Day 3 of rioting and burning, I don't know what to tell ya.

I'm a Wisconsinite, who saw the damage done to those family businesses. Kenosha is a blue collar town, and it was left defenseless for days. When the Governor failed to allow the National Guard to come in until days later and the police were hamstrung, were they just supposed to take it? Really? Is this the answer from the Left?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:If you're equating a kid who was trying to deter thugs from burning down businesses in Kenosha with the thugs who were there for Day 3 of rioting and burning, I don't know what to tell ya.

I'm a Wisconsinite, who saw the damage done to those family businesses. Kenosha is a blue collar town, and it was left defenseless for days. When the Governor failed to allow the National Guard to come in until days later and the police were hamstrung, were they just supposed to take it? Really? Is this the answer from the Left?


What business? No businessman has come forward saying that they hired Rittenhouse and would take responsibility for his presence and his actions.

Think about why that is.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:If you're equating a kid who was trying to deter thugs from burning down businesses in Kenosha with the thugs who were there for Day 3 of rioting and burning, I don't know what to tell ya.

I'm a Wisconsinite, who saw the damage done to those family businesses. Kenosha is a blue collar town, and it was left defenseless for days. When the Governor failed to allow the National Guard to come in until days later and the police were hamstrung, were they just supposed to take it? Really? Is this the answer from the Left?


Responsible business owners have insurance, and would protect their businesses themselves or hire private security before they would ask teenagers to carry firearms into an active riot, in violation of the curfew. Use your head. KR acted on his own, in pursuit of excitement and being heralded in the community. His walking around with an AR-15 after curfew, when only miscreants were out on the streets, was dangerous and stupid. His mother was dumb for thinking it was fine for him to be out there at night, as long as he was playing “medic.” He’s really lucky that he was the one shooting and not one of the people who got shot.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: