Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Political discussions
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19949
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by UNI88 »


AZGrizFan wrote:
DSUrocks07 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:18 am Best guess is that he took an immunity deal from the DA to testify because they were desperate to try to convict, and when he got on the stand confessing to being the aggressor of the situation.

I still remember that they media tried to make him a sympathetic figure because the "mean white supremacist" shot a poor paramedic in the arm who had nothing to do with the situation, a face to the BIG LIE that Rittenhouse was firing wildly into the crowd killing a bunch of black people who was trying to get away from him.

It always sucks when facts get in the way of a good fairytale.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
Facts never stopped leftists or MAGAts. Ever.
FYP



Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
Gil Dobie
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 30939
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Gil Dobie »

Can't believe the spin the left is putting on this trial. It's as bad as the Trumpers and Covid.
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by JohnStOnge »

DSUrocks07 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:18 amthe BIG LIE that Rittenhouse was firing wildly into the crowd killing a bunch of black people who was trying to get away from him.


Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
I honestly never saw or heard anybody claim that.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by JohnStOnge »

Gil Dobie wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:49 pm Can't believe the spin the left is putting on this trial. It's as bad as the Trumpers and Covid.
I do think we need to stop acting like there is symmetry by how bad the misinformation thing is on each side. It's way worse on the "Trumper" side. Not close.

To me there seems to be this thing where people feel like they need to say that both sides are just as bad in order to show that they are balanced. But that's not the situation right now. Both sides are not just as bad right now. The Republican/Conservative side is way worse. WAY worse.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
Gil Dobie
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 30939
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Gil Dobie »

JohnStOnge wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:15 pm
Gil Dobie wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:49 pm Can't believe the spin the left is putting on this trial. It's as bad as the Trumpers and Covid.
I do think we need to stop acting like there is symmetry by how bad the misinformation thing is on each side. It's way worse on the "Trumper" side. Not close.

To me there seems to be this thing where people feel like they need to say that both sides are just as bad in order to show that they are balanced. But that's not the situation right now. Both sides are not just as bad right now. The Republican/Conservative side is way worse. WAY worse.
Not from what I'm seeing. The guy was in town with a legal gun at his relatives gas station. What would you do if an angry person was beating on you, even with a skateboard, or someone aimed a gun at you on your relatives property in SD, and you had one of their guns in your hands. Would you let them continue to beat on you or shoot you versus defending yourself?
Image
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by CID1990 »

JohnStOnge wrote:
Gil Dobie wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:49 pm Can't believe the spin the left is putting on this trial. It's as bad as the Trumpers and Covid.
I do think we need to stop acting like there is symmetry by how bad the misinformation thing is on each side. It's way worse on the "Trumper" side. Not close.

To me there seems to be this thing where people feel like they need to say that both sides are just as bad in order to show that they are balanced. But that's not the situation right now. Both sides are not just as bad right now. The Republican/Conservative side is way worse. WAY worse.
No, it isn’t. There are media narratives about Rittenhouse out there as we speak that are just as bad and fact-challenged as “stop the steal”.

Let’s face it - there are idiots out there from both the right and the left who are sipping from the same well.

The only real difference is that the majority of the media (read: pretty much everybody except FOX) is stoking the fire around the idea suggesting that Rittenhouse is guilty of murder and that his self defense claim was a white supremacist sham, supported by a sympathetic justice system. That is equally stupid as the misinformation that led to Jan 6, and as we have already seen, equally incendiary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

BDKJMU wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:20 pm
This probably is applicable to 95 percent of Biden voters; at least the ones who were alive when they voted…

* I didn’t know that Kyle put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.
* I didn’t know that the Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.
* I didn’t know that Kyles Dad, Grandma and Friends all lived in Kenosha, 20 minutes from where he resided with his Mom part time in Illinois.
* I didn’t know that Joseph Rosenbaum knocked him down twice and then attempted to kick him with lethal force to the head.
* I didn’t know that Huber had hit him in the head 2x with a skateboard.
* I didn’t know Gaige Grosskreutz, a felon in possession of firearm, aimed his gun at Kyle first, as he admitted on the stand.
* I also didn’t know that in the State of Wisconsin, it is legal for Kyle to have a gun, even at 17 (which was why the gun charge was dismissed).
* I didn’t know that Kyle did not cross state lines with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have. The rightful gun owner did, as he was legally permitted to do.
* I also didn’t realize that Rosenbaum was a 5 time convicted child rapist and that Huber was a 2 time convicted woman beater. I didn’t know that Grosskreutz was a convicted Burglar with an assault on his record also.

IF THE MEDIA DID THEIR JOB… we would ALL have known this!
This entire case has been emotional from the beginning - just look at this board. :lol:
All that aside - it doesn't excuse vigilantism which is what this boiled down to. Who owned the gun he used?

For the record - I don't think he showed up to create problems and I believe he acted in self defense. But let's not think this kid is some badass or American Hero. He acted in self defense and got lucky. How many people act in self defense everyday and still lose? He made a stupid decision to be a vigilante. And using the criminal history of the dead to justify it as well is just ridiculous. By that logic, you'll justify the 9/11 attacks if you learned that some American criminals were killed on the plain or in the towers. The adage, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is very fitting here.

Fortunately, Kyle is going to make so much damn money from suing the various media outlets that he'll never have to work a day in his life.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by CID1990 »

Ibanez wrote:
BDKJMU wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:20 pm
This entire case has been emotional from the beginning - just look at this board. :lol:
All that aside - it doesn't excuse vigilantism which is what this boiled down to. Who owned the gun he used?

For the record - I don't think he showed up to create problems and I believe he acted in self defense. But let's not think this kid is some badass or American Hero. He acted in self defense and got lucky. How many people act in self defense everyday and still lose? He made a stupid decision to be a vigilante. And using the criminal history of the dead to justify it as well is just ridiculous. By that logic, you'll justify the 9/11 attacks if you learned that some American criminals were killed on the plain or in the towers. The adage, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is very fitting here.

Fortunately, Kyle is going to make so much damn money from suing the various media outlets that he'll never have to work a day in his life.
See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
DSUrocks07
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5236
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:32 pm
I am a fan of: Delaware State
A.K.A.: phillywild305
Location: The 9th Circle of Hellaware

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by DSUrocks07 »

CID1990 wrote:
Ibanez wrote: This entire case has been emotional from the beginning - just look at this board. Image
All that aside - it doesn't excuse vigilantism which is what this boiled down to. Who owned the gun he used?

For the record - I don't think he showed up to create problems and I believe he acted in self defense. But let's not think this kid is some badass or American Hero. He acted in self defense and got lucky. How many people act in self defense everyday and still lose? He made a stupid decision to be a vigilante. And using the criminal history of the dead to justify it as well is just ridiculous. By that logic, you'll justify the 9/11 attacks if you learned that some American criminals were killed on the plain or in the towers. The adage, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is very fitting here.

Fortunately, Kyle is going to make so much damn money from suing the various media outlets that he'll never have to work a day in his life.
See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This.

By that metric, are all armed security guards vigilantes? The government doesn't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on the right of self defense.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

MEAC, last one out turn off the lights.

@phillywild305 FB
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18033
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by GannonFan »

DSUrocks07 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:00 am
CID1990 wrote: See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This.

By that metric, are all armed security guards vigilantes? The government doesn't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on the right of self defense.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
I agree. Technical definition of "vigilante" implies dispensing justice on someone. By this case, technically Rittenhouse isn't a vigilante as it was deemed to be self defense. He didn't go after anyone, he held off people going after him.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

CID1990 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:21 am
Ibanez wrote: This entire case has been emotional from the beginning - just look at this board. :lol:
All that aside - it doesn't excuse vigilantism which is what this boiled down to. Who owned the gun he used?

For the record - I don't think he showed up to create problems and I believe he acted in self defense. But let's not think this kid is some badass or American Hero. He acted in self defense and got lucky. How many people act in self defense everyday and still lose? He made a stupid decision to be a vigilante. And using the criminal history of the dead to justify it as well is just ridiculous. By that logic, you'll justify the 9/11 attacks if you learned that some American criminals were killed on the plain or in the towers. The adage, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is very fitting here.

Fortunately, Kyle is going to make so much damn money from suing the various media outlets that he'll never have to work a day in his life.
See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

DSUrocks07 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:00 am
CID1990 wrote: See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This.

By that metric, are all armed security guards vigilantes? The government doesn't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on the right of self defense.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
Are security guards hired to protect property? Do they have the authority to do so vs just showing up?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18033
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by GannonFan »

Ibanez wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:53 am
CID1990 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:21 am
See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.
Well, your opinion could be that, but the opinion of Merriam and Webster is ...
Definition of vigilante
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)
broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante

The English language is pretty expressive, I'm sure you can find a term that fits Rittenhouse since vigilante doesn't. :coffee:
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

GannonFan wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:16 am
DSUrocks07 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:00 am This.

By that metric, are all armed security guards vigilantes? The government doesn't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on the right of self defense.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
I agree. Technical definition of "vigilante" implies dispensing justice on someone. By this case, technically Rittenhouse isn't a vigilante as it was deemed to be self defense. He didn't go after anyone, he held off people going after him.
I'm not talking about him acting in self defense - he put himself in a bad situation and defended himself. He should've kept his ass at home.

Why did he think he had the authority or the duty to go protect the property that wasn't his?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

GannonFan wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:56 am
Ibanez wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:53 am
What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.
Well, your opinion could be that, but the opinion of Merriam and Webster is ...
Definition of vigilante
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)
broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante

The English language is pretty expressive, I'm sure you can find a term that fits Rittenhouse since vigilante doesn't. :coffee:
The bolded section above doesn't sound like Kyle to you? :lol:

Oxford
law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.
If vigilante isn't your cup of tea, the synonyms are a bit softer - guard, defender, sentinel (I think I saw him referred to that on Fox News last week). :mrgreen:
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by CID1990 »

Ibanez wrote:
CID1990 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:21 am See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.
Standing i front of businesses defying people to destroy them is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is an aggressive act, not a defensive one.

I’m surprised at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by SDHornet »

CID1990 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:19 pm
Ibanez wrote: What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.
Standing i front of businesses defying people to destroy them is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is an aggressive act, not a defensive one.

I’m surprised at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's what people don't get. Ibanez is trying a work around of the "he shouldn't have been there" narrative that is weak as hell considering the gubmint abdicated its duty to keep the peace and protect public safety (not just in Kenosha, but pretty much everywhere during those 2020 riots). Once the gubmint failed its duty to protect public safety, its up to the people to fend for themselves and let the dead felons...er I mean chips fall where they may.

This idea that once societal order breaks down and people should just standby and let the criminals run roughshod over everything is absurd. Fuck that mentality. Only a punk ass bitch would think not protecting their community/family is the way to go.

Bobcat
Level1
Level1
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:05 am
I am a fan of: NDSU

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Bobcat »

Rittenhouse was 100% self defense and the adults in the room saw that.

BTW the prosecutor should be imprisoned for attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and child abuse. He should lose his job for what he just tried to pull off due to his politics. He was the only criminal in the courtroom
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

SDHornet wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 10:21 pm
CID1990 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:19 pm
Standing i front of businesses defying people to destroy them is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is an aggressive act, not a defensive one.

I’m surprised at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's what people don't get. Ibanez is trying a work around of the "he shouldn't have been there" narrative that is weak as hell considering the gubmint abdicated its duty to keep the peace and protect public safety (not just in Kenosha, but pretty much everywhere during those 2020 riots). Once the gubmint failed its duty to protect public safety, its up to the people to fend for themselves and let the dead felons...er I mean chips fall where they may.

This idea that once societal order breaks down and people should just standby and let the criminals run roughshod over everything is absurd. Fuck that mentality. Only a punk ass bitch would think not protecting their community/family is the way to go.

Was Kyle protecting his family or community? He wasn't. He didn't live in Kenosha.

And the reality that he should've kept his ass at home is only weak to you b/c it fits your ideologies. I'm not saying the government should have stood down, but you're up there saying that when they do it's up to the unqualified, un trained, un authorized citizens maintain law and order during extremely chaotic and dangerous events. That does nothing but exacerbate the problem.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

CID1990 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:19 pm
Ibanez wrote: What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.
Standing i front of businesses defying people to destroy them is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is an aggressive act, not a defensive one.

I’m surprised at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm surprised at you! :lol: He shouldn't have been there, plain and simple. If Kenosha wants to let the town burn, then let it burn.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
LeadBolt
Level3
Level3
Posts: 3584
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:44 pm
I am a fan of: William & Mary
Location: Botetourt

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by LeadBolt »

Kyle Rittenhouse lived approximately 20 miles or so from the incident. His father lives in Kenosha.

Government in this country is based upon “We the People”. When government fails to protect “We the people “ it has failed and “We the people need to act”.

One group of “We the people “ felt that the government failed them and started rioting, looting, burning and assaulting other people.

The government stood down.

Kyle Rittenhouse went out to defend the life, liberty and property (Jefferson’s original wording) of those being assaulted by the first group.

The people that verbally threatened to kill him, swung chains at him, ran him down when he tried to disengage and pointed a loaded gun at him were the aggressors. Rittenhouse obviously had reasons to act in self defense.

When Rittenhouse and those that he shot were all white, I can’t understand why this is supposed to be about race.

The press is pushing a false, sensationalized story to fit their agenda. Only those gullible, too lazy to ascertain the facts or too ignorant of the actual facts are falling for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38526
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by CAA Flagship »

So let's say a person is standing in front of a business or home while trying to protect it with a gun.
And a person or group of persons begin to cause damage to the structure.
Is there a legal right to use the gun to stop the damage? Does the person with the gun have to be on the inside to use a self defense excuse?

What if the person with the gun is on the outside and a looter is exiting the business or home with stolen property? Is there any legal recourse to shoot the looter?

I'm trying to understand where the law allows the use of a gun in the absence of defense of bodily harm.
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

I can admit that vigilante maybe isn't the best word...but the fact remains that he bought a gun illegally and then interjected himself into a powder keg. It wasn't a wise decision.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

LeadBolt wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:41 am Kyle Rittenhouse lived approximately 20 miles or so from the incident. His father lives in Kenosha.

Government in this country is based upon “We the People”. When government fails to protect “We the people “ it has failed and “We the people need to act”.

One group of “We the people “ felt that the government failed them and started rioting, looting, burning and assaulting other people.

The government stood down.

Kyle Rittenhouse went out to defend the life, liberty and property (Jefferson’s original wording) of those being assaulted by the first group.

The people that verbally threatened to kill him, swung chains at him, ran him down when he tried to disengage and pointed a loaded gun at him were the aggressors. Rittenhouse obviously had reasons to act in self defense.

When Rittenhouse and those that he shot were all white, I can’t understand why this is supposed to be about race.

The press is pushing a false, sensationalized story to fit their agenda. Only those gullible, too lazy to ascertain the facts or too ignorant of the actual facts are falling for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I live 20 minutes from Charlotte. I'm not going to stand guard in front of Felix Sebates* dealership to defend it.

The government should've had a damn backbone and not let those riotous thugs proceed. We've put the kid gloves on with domestic terrorists like Antifa/BLM b/c we don't want to make them cry. Any town that does that deserves what happens.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Post by Ibanez »

CAA Flagship wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:43 am So let's say a person is standing in front of a business or home while trying to protect it with a gun.
And a person or group of persons begin to cause damage to the structure.
Is there a legal right to use the gun to stop the damage? Does the person with the gun have to be on the inside to use a self defense excuse?

What if the person with the gun is on the outside and a looter is exiting the business or home with stolen property? Is there any legal recourse to shoot the looter?

I'm trying to understand where the law allows the use of a gun in the absence of defense of bodily harm.
I would love to hear some expert opinions on that.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Post Reply