It's Called Self Defense.

[Turtle]

A lot of assumptions and bets...

Not to mention Betazoid-level mindreading.

Also, no THE video that gets played on the media doesn't show what happened before the shootings, but they're were hundreds of other camera phones recording videos, and some of them do, in fact, show what happened beforehand. Not one of them show him antagonizing anyone.

 

[Turtle]

Please quote where he said that.

I'll wait ...

It was a question asked, not a quote.

 

[roadeyes]

Whether he was confrontational or not is secondary. He had no reason to be there and his reasons for being there were obvious and I don't need betazoid level thinking to know that, just a single brain cell......

 

[Pilgrim]

The Rittenhouse case has considerable meaning to all of us because we have elections coming about a year from now. The campaign season will start in earnest in Jan. Notice the Antifa/BLM riots have disappeared since Biden got elected. Will they erupt again sometime next year when it becomes evident that Democrat majorities in both houses of congress are likely to fall? The reason Kenosha is significant is that it's a typical Middle America town, and offers the possible threat that rioters could come to any town the terrorists choose. Anyone who thinks it's not possible that they'll show up in your town is kidding themselves - especially if it's a college town. At that point people - at least in the South and Midwest will take up arms and defend themselves, their property and their cities if the local and state govts don't do their jobs. Could they end up like Kyle Rittenhouse?

 

[roadeyes]

Oh I get it, believe me I do. As mentioned I am pro gun and generally of a libertarian viewpoint.
I also believe that gov'ts should always live in fear of the people and not the other way around and that's why you have militias.

I'm just not a fan of the proud boys however or their northern counterparts that we have in Alberta and other places.
(I was so embarrassed for Canada when I found out Ted Cruz was from Alberta, LoL!)

 

[muttly]

Whether he was confrontational or not is secondary. He had no reason to be there and his reasons for being there were obvious and I don't need betazoid level thinking to know that, just a single brain cell......

How in the heck is that secondary? He was down there and from videos and accounts he was giving first aid to people and puting out fires that were set by people. He subsequently was being chased for doing so. He wasn't shooting at arsonists and rioters. At what point could he use his gun to defend himself from great bodily harm? After the first guy chases him down and takes his gun away and uses it on him. Or the second fellow that stomps on his head and takes his gun?Or the other one that knocks him out with his skateboard and takes his gun. Or the other fellow holding his hand gun and about to shoot? Those people shouldn't have been chasing him to begin with.

 

[roadeyes]

If are willing to put yourself in harms way then you also have to be willing to accept the consequences.
He still had no reason to be there and if he wasn't there, there wouldn't have been a shooting and anybody that says he prevented potential further damage to innocent people is speculating even more than I am.

I'm done!

 

[muttly]

Wow! Just Wow! They are equally wrong but your mentality is that somehow 2 wrongs make a right, LOL!
I give up! Who can compete against a mentality like that? You are the epitomy of hammerhead american thinking!!!

Please tell me whay he should have been there? Can you answer that? And can you give me a reasonable answer that justifies why he was there other than to be confrontational? Can you answer plausibly and intelligently other than just saying it's his "right" to be there?

If his "right" is your only argument then you are absolutely laughable!
By that logic, it's also the right of the antifa/blm to be there then as well isn't it????

He has a right to be there. And antifa and BLM has a right to be there. It becomes a problem when someone's life is threatened. People are allowed to defend themselves from great bodily harm or worse. It's their right to do so.

 

[muttly]

If are willing to put yourself in harms way then you also have to be willing to accept the consequences.
He still had no reason to be there and if he wasn't there, there wouldn't have been a shooting and anybody that says he prevented potential further damage to innocent people is speculating even more than I am.

I'm done!

He saved his own life potentially by having his gun. Those consequences are better than the alternative.

 

[muttly]

If are willing to put yourself in harms way then you also have to be willing to accept the consequences.
He still had no reason to be there and if he wasn't there, there wouldn't have been a shooting and anybody that says he prevented potential further damage to innocent people is speculating even more than I am.

I'm done!

Before you go. Was the shooting justified? Yes or no answer.

 

[muttly]

There are a lot of moving parts involved with this situation, and it seems the discussion has drifted away from the point of the OP. No one seems to take into account that the BLM/Antifa rioters shouldn't have been there in the first place, and the Gov of WI let the riots and looting go on too long without calling in the National Guard to stop them by whatever means necessary. It stands to reason that after all the damage and destruction that has previously been done by these domestic terrorists with little to no resistance in Seattle and Portland, some sensible Americans would decide enough is enough and take matters into their own hands to protect their lives and property.

That being said, it's not surprising that a 17 year-old kid whose ability to make sensible judgements is still in the development stage would decide to get involved in the Kenosha mess. Granted, it was a stupid decision but keep in mind there may be some mental issues with him that factor in as well. Wanting to get in the middle of a domestic terror attack by armed thugs is evidence of that. However, he had a right to be there and speculating what he was thinking or what his motivations were is pointless and irrelevant.

So in doing so, he violated some gun laws and likely some other statutes as well but the idea of sending him away for the rest of his life for "Thought Crimes", 1st degree murder, etc is totally unjustified. Hopefully his attorneys will handle this well and put the Thought Police back in their bottle.

Looking at the video I posted, I’m not sure there is anything else he could have done without endangering himself further and potential getting seriously harmed or worse. He ran away from the confrontation, but was pursued and had something thrown at him. He turned around to assess if the fellow was still chasing him. The fellow was. He continued to run away from confrontation. The chaser closed on him and before he could harm him he shot the weapon. He immediately called 911 for help. Realized he was being chased again and ran way from confrontation. They caught up to him. After the attempted head stomp by one, he defends himself. After the skateboard attempted head smash, he defended himself again. After the third guy drew his handgun to shoot him, he defended himself again. He didn’t have a hair trigger with the other guy in front of him after he put up his hands. Assessed the danger and didn’t shoot. Continued to run for help. Pretty much text book self defense.

 

[RLENT]

It was a question asked, not a quote.

No, it wasn't.

But nice try.

 

[RLENT]

He has a right to be there. And antifa and BLM has a right to be there.

No - Governor Evers had declared a State of Emergency for the area and there was an 8 PM curfew.

It becomes a problem when someone's life is threatened. People are allowed to defend themselves from great bodily harm or worse. It's their right to do so.

Rittenhouse was also charged as minor (under 18) in possession of dangerous weapon, which is a misdemeanor under WI law.

Apparently in WI, minor kids possessing dangerous weapons isn't legal.

Who knew ?

 

[muttly]

No - Governor Evers had declared a State of Emergency for the area and there was an 8 PM curfew.



Rittenhouse was also charged as minor (under 18) in possession of dangerous weapon, which is a misdemeanor under WI law.

Apparently in WI, minor kids possessing dangerous weapons isn't legal.

Who knew ?

You mean they didn’t arrest all the curfew breakers?

 

[Turtle]

No, it wasn't.

But nice try.

"is what your saying roadeyes" is a question. So yes it was.

 

[muttly]

Got it. No one should have been there. So no need to put out fires or render first aid because no one was there, but they were there setting fires and vandalizing stuff anyway.

 

[RLENT]

"is what your saying roadeyes" is a question. So yes it was.

Nope ... particularly when you include the entirety of what Dan said:

So he couldn't have a gun but the 2 blm or antifa thugs could have guns is what your saying roadeyes.......ok double standard there bud.

It is, in fact, a statement ... tagged with an accusation (aka direct "personal attack") at the end.

Of course, you're not gonna call Dan that.

The price of having a fan club does have its costs.

 

[RLENT]

Got it. No one should have been there.

No one that wasn't legally authorized/allowed to be.

That would exclude Rittenhouse of course ... AND most assuredly anyone protesting or rioting (which are two entirely different things BTW)

So no need to put out fires or render first aid because no one was there, but they were there setting fires and vandalizing stuff anyway.

I didn't claim that no one was there - that's some concoction of your own making ...

And the above is most likely offered to deflect and avoid grappling with Rittenhouse's culpability for having violated multiple laws, the ultimate consequence of which was that he ended up murdering several people.

Rittenhouse should have been at home, in bed ... after being given a glass of warm milk, being read a bedtime story, and being safely tucked in for the night by his Momma ...

 

[RLENT]

You mean they didn’t arrest all the curfew breakers?

Read what I wrote again, if you are having a hard time divining my meaning.

It isn't really all that hard.

 

[roadeyes]

"No - Governor Evers had declared a State of Emergency for the area and there was an 8 PM curfew."

And that "right" that Rittenhouse just had has now been taken away thanks to a curfew order and he broke it in order to not defend his own property. But by your logic 2 wrongs make it right, LoL!

Got it. No one should have been there. So no need to put out fires or render first aid because no one was there, but they were there setting fires and vandalizing stuff anyway.

And that gives him the right to break the curfew does it?

So far noone has made any kind of reasonable justification for him being there and breaking curfew puts him even more in the wrong.
danthewolf00 however figure he's a hero for going there, breaking curfew and preventing any possible "future" crimes by shooting these people. But the thought police are wrong and shouldn't be persecuting him, LoL! Rittenhouse has already shown lack of respect for the law which makes him no better than blm/antifa.

I'd love to hear how you all spin it this time! Oh right, it's ok because he must be preserving liberty and the american way of life.