By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
He's a dangerous vigilante that you're building up as some form of cult hero. No 'very intelligent and emotionally sensitive young man' would speak about the act of taking another's life in such a callous and open manner, and then act out his fantasies a few weeks later. He's the example of teenage aggression radicalized by the online far-right left unchecked. Anyone supporting him should not mourn the people who will lose their lives in future incidents if we continue to idolize.
'Interesting you choose to condemn him as opposed to the criminals trying to take his life.'
Never once have I praised the people attacking him, have I? Doesn't make what Rittenhouse did right.
A cult hero? How? Any quotes?.... or are you misrepresenting things again?
If he is a dangerous vigilante then you would be able to demonstrate how he posed and demonstrated a clear danger to those committing non lethal crimes.
The people he shot were trying to kill or severely injure him. That does not describe a “dangerous vigilante” as much as I’m sure you would like it to. It describes someone defending himself, there is nothing “vigilante” about those incidents.
Act out his fantasies? Can you show me where his fantasy was being put into a situation where he had to defend his life? What you claim his fantasies were (which is nonsense by the way) and what happened aren’t remotely similar.
He fully deserved the public’s support and it appears he is getting it too. If there happens to be a large criminal mob burning people’s homes and business again and government stop police intervening then this will absolutely happen again and the owners of those homes and businesses will no doubt be grateful for people like Kyle.
Those that cannot recognise the difference between defence and attack are likely to be those that allow an environment that allows such horrendous and continuous crimes like those riots to unfold and back the public into a corner to defend themselves.
I didn’t say anything about praise, I said interesting you decide to condemn a boy defending himself as opposed to the criminals attacking him. Read what I say please, not what you prefer I said.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2021 3:20]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 02:35 - Nov 15 by Dr_Parnassus
A cult hero? How? Any quotes?.... or are you misrepresenting things again?
If he is a dangerous vigilante then you would be able to demonstrate how he posed and demonstrated a clear danger to those committing non lethal crimes.
The people he shot were trying to kill or severely injure him. That does not describe a “dangerous vigilante” as much as I’m sure you would like it to. It describes someone defending himself, there is nothing “vigilante” about those incidents.
Act out his fantasies? Can you show me where his fantasy was being put into a situation where he had to defend his life? What you claim his fantasies were (which is nonsense by the way) and what happened aren’t remotely similar.
He fully deserved the public’s support and it appears he is getting it too. If there happens to be a large criminal mob burning people’s homes and business again and government stop police intervening then this will absolutely happen again and the owners of those homes and businesses will no doubt be grateful for people like Kyle.
Those that cannot recognise the difference between defence and attack are likely to be those that allow an environment that allows such horrendous and continuous crimes like those riots to unfold and back the public into a corner to defend themselves.
I didn’t say anything about praise, I said interesting you decide to condemn a boy defending himself as opposed to the criminals attacking him. Read what I say please, not what you prefer I said.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2021 3:20]
Every comment against Kyle is based on MSM lies and not the facts, which was why I asked earlier if they had actually watched the trial. They obviously hadn't. Character assassination of anybody telling it how it is is all they have.
Every comment against Kyle is based on MSM lies and not the facts, which was why I asked earlier if they had actually watched the trial. They obviously hadn't. Character assassination of anybody telling it how it is is all they have.
Absolutely all they have.
The prosecution is an utter disgrace too, their professional behavior has been abhorrent.
If he is found not guilty of murder, which he absolutely should be. He is going to be a very rich kid with the amount of comments from prominent people he can (and should) go after.
Mainstream media needs to be abolished and rebuilt.
Crooked to it's core.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 02:35 - Nov 15 by Dr_Parnassus
A cult hero? How? Any quotes?.... or are you misrepresenting things again?
If he is a dangerous vigilante then you would be able to demonstrate how he posed and demonstrated a clear danger to those committing non lethal crimes.
The people he shot were trying to kill or severely injure him. That does not describe a “dangerous vigilante” as much as I’m sure you would like it to. It describes someone defending himself, there is nothing “vigilante” about those incidents.
Act out his fantasies? Can you show me where his fantasy was being put into a situation where he had to defend his life? What you claim his fantasies were (which is nonsense by the way) and what happened aren’t remotely similar.
He fully deserved the public’s support and it appears he is getting it too. If there happens to be a large criminal mob burning people’s homes and business again and government stop police intervening then this will absolutely happen again and the owners of those homes and businesses will no doubt be grateful for people like Kyle.
Those that cannot recognise the difference between defence and attack are likely to be those that allow an environment that allows such horrendous and continuous crimes like those riots to unfold and back the public into a corner to defend themselves.
I didn’t say anything about praise, I said interesting you decide to condemn a boy defending himself as opposed to the criminals attacking him. Read what I say please, not what you prefer I said.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2021 3:20]
Taking it upon himself to protect that business because he deemed the official law enforcement response inadequate is the very definition of the word ‘vigilante’.
But of course there has to be scope within the law to protect yourself, I think in uk law it is termed something like “reasonable force”. I don’t know what it is in America but I imagine they’d have an equivalent term and it’s hard to see how an mp15 rifle could fall under the category of “reasonable force”. There’s also the suggestion that he was underage and wasn’t legally allowed to carry the gun in the first place. This sounds to me quite dangerous for an underage child to be protecting a business in lieu of a poorly performing police force with an illegal semi automatic rifle so I think the term “dangerous vigilante” is incredibly appropriate in this case. We can’t condone poorly trained kids running around with weapons. That’s just madness.
But I do agree his actions outside this were to defend his own life. Take the politics out of it and it’s a kid biting off more than he can chew and ending up in the shit, but when guns are involved the repercussions are exponentially worse.
He deserves to be punished, his actions were completely irresponsible. But it’s not murder.
Taking it upon himself to protect that business because he deemed the official law enforcement response inadequate is the very definition of the word ‘vigilante’.
But of course there has to be scope within the law to protect yourself, I think in uk law it is termed something like “reasonable force”. I don’t know what it is in America but I imagine they’d have an equivalent term and it’s hard to see how an mp15 rifle could fall under the category of “reasonable force”. There’s also the suggestion that he was underage and wasn’t legally allowed to carry the gun in the first place. This sounds to me quite dangerous for an underage child to be protecting a business in lieu of a poorly performing police force with an illegal semi automatic rifle so I think the term “dangerous vigilante” is incredibly appropriate in this case. We can’t condone poorly trained kids running around with weapons. That’s just madness.
But I do agree his actions outside this were to defend his own life. Take the politics out of it and it’s a kid biting off more than he can chew and ending up in the shit, but when guns are involved the repercussions are exponentially worse.
He deserves to be punished, his actions were completely irresponsible. But it’s not murder.
"He deserves to be punished, his actions were completely irresponsible."
No, what was totally irresponsibe was the State Governor, the town Mayor and the Police allowing the Rioters to do what they were doing day after day. Any rioters that were arrested were immediately released to carry on rioting. You had the likes of Kamala Harris raising funds to get them out of jail. You had the FBI saying they did not exist. You had the MSM not reporting what was happening.
So let's blame some kid who was asked to help protect people's property instead.
Taking it upon himself to protect that business because he deemed the official law enforcement response inadequate is the very definition of the word ‘vigilante’.
But of course there has to be scope within the law to protect yourself, I think in uk law it is termed something like “reasonable force”. I don’t know what it is in America but I imagine they’d have an equivalent term and it’s hard to see how an mp15 rifle could fall under the category of “reasonable force”. There’s also the suggestion that he was underage and wasn’t legally allowed to carry the gun in the first place. This sounds to me quite dangerous for an underage child to be protecting a business in lieu of a poorly performing police force with an illegal semi automatic rifle so I think the term “dangerous vigilante” is incredibly appropriate in this case. We can’t condone poorly trained kids running around with weapons. That’s just madness.
But I do agree his actions outside this were to defend his own life. Take the politics out of it and it’s a kid biting off more than he can chew and ending up in the shit, but when guns are involved the repercussions are exponentially worse.
He deserves to be punished, his actions were completely irresponsible. But it’s not murder.
‘Dangerous vigilante’ is the term I objected to.
If he were a dangerous vigilante then he would have acted out of turn and in a demonstrably dangerous manner in order to stop rioting. He didn’t, he is filmed de-escalating a situation, putting out fires and also leading the public away from danger. He was acting very responsibly.
The only time he shot or displayed any form of “danger” is in response to an attack and threat on his life, which is reasonable and not “dangerous”.
If I go and stand outside an old mans house to attempt to deter it from being looted, and I am about to be knifed and I knock someone out, calling me a “dangerous vigilante” wouldn’t be accurate. Because my actions would not be consistent of that of a vigilante but one of someone protecting himself from attack. It is a reasoned response.
As for what you can do to protect your life from threat, reasonable force is anything up to and including lethal force. That includes an AR-15, they are legally allowed to be open carried in the state, it’s no different in the eyes of the law than if it was a pistol.
Yes he wasn’t able to legally have one due to his age, but that is a gun ownership issue. That doesn’t affect his rights to defend himself. I don’t have a gun licence but if there was a gun available and someone was about to murder me, I could use it, it wouldn’t heighten any murder charge because I wasn’t licensed.
He was in possession of the firearm prior to being attacked so may well be guilty of a firearm ownership charge, which is anything from a $500 fine to 6-8 months in jail I think (and you would only probably serve half).
But he didn’t show any provable danger to anyone prior to them attacking him so “dangerous vigilante” is not accurate. Helpful member of the public would probably be more accurate, be spent his day cleaning graffiti of businesses and homes.
He deserves to be punished for breaking age gun laws, but deserves extreme praise for his attitude to the community and his willingness to put himself in harms way to protect others.
Anything more than 6-8 month prison sentence for the gun charge, and it’s an extreme miscarriage of justice.
Everybody knows this and realises this by now, but yet again the media have turned it into a political trial and the waters get muddied between loyalty and common sense. My suspicion is that he will be charged with reckless endangerment or some other silly charge to appease the mob. Which may come with 5 years or so, out after 3 then swept under the carpet neatly.
The media are the dangerous ones in all this and they should be held to account for their role not only in this incident but the year of rioting as a whole.
“Fiery but mostly peaceful”, so ridiculous it’s become a meme.
Truly disgusting.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2021 12:47]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
"He deserves to be punished, his actions were completely irresponsible."
No, what was totally irresponsibe was the State Governor, the town Mayor and the Police allowing the Rioters to do what they were doing day after day. Any rioters that were arrested were immediately released to carry on rioting. You had the likes of Kamala Harris raising funds to get them out of jail. You had the FBI saying they did not exist. You had the MSM not reporting what was happening.
So let's blame some kid who was asked to help protect people's property instead.
Again, although I concede that there are/were major failings in the state and local authorities up to the very highest of offices which led to an unacceptable state of destruction, anarchy and lawlessness it should nevertheless not lead to the need for a child to take up arms to defend a business
Have a think what you’re defending here. A child. With an assault rifle. Protecting a business against a rampaging crowd. It could only end one way. Even highly trained soldiers or law enforcement would at least have some backup, they would back off if heavily outnumbered or not get themselves into that situation where they could be suddenly overwhelmed.
Even if his intentions were entirely good and honourable (and I’ve got no reason to think they weren’t) his actions are still without doubt moronically stupid and irresponsible. He should be made an example of. We can’t have kids taking up arms and fighting the bad guys. This isn’t the marvel universe. This shit is real.
Again, although I concede that there are/were major failings in the state and local authorities up to the very highest of offices which led to an unacceptable state of destruction, anarchy and lawlessness it should nevertheless not lead to the need for a child to take up arms to defend a business
Have a think what you’re defending here. A child. With an assault rifle. Protecting a business against a rampaging crowd. It could only end one way. Even highly trained soldiers or law enforcement would at least have some backup, they would back off if heavily outnumbered or not get themselves into that situation where they could be suddenly overwhelmed.
Even if his intentions were entirely good and honourable (and I’ve got no reason to think they weren’t) his actions are still without doubt moronically stupid and irresponsible. He should be made an example of. We can’t have kids taking up arms and fighting the bad guys. This isn’t the marvel universe. This shit is real.
Again important to note, at no point did he shoot anyone for attacking a business or for “rampaging”.
He shot three people, all of which attacked him with a clear intent to kill or seriously injure, one of which pointed a loaded gun at his head. This had nothing to do with the destruction to property, this was to do with people trying to take his life or seriously maim him.
If we don’t want the public to defend their homes and businesses then they cannot be failed by Government, which is what they were here. Democrat government pandering to a media narrative because it had political benefit.
Whether it be man woman or child, they will all have an innate desire to protect themselves and others and I don’t think it’s for any of us to pass judgement.
Until your family’s house, business or way of life is under attack from domestic terrorists with an insatiable need to destroy everything and anything, then there is no telling how you would react.
The example should not be made of the people defending themselves, the examples need to be made of those destroying homes and businesses for political reasons, it is domestic terrorism by definition.
It’s a terrible message to send, that “it’s fine to be a domestic terrorist but don’t you dare try and protect yourself against them or you will be locked up”.
Come on now.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2021 14:01]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 13:55 - Nov 15 by Dr_Parnassus
Again important to note, at no point did he shoot anyone for attacking a business or for “rampaging”.
He shot three people, all of which attacked him with a clear intent to kill or seriously injure, one of which pointed a loaded gun at his head. This had nothing to do with the destruction to property, this was to do with people trying to take his life or seriously maim him.
If we don’t want the public to defend their homes and businesses then they cannot be failed by Government, which is what they were here. Democrat government pandering to a media narrative because it had political benefit.
Whether it be man woman or child, they will all have an innate desire to protect themselves and others and I don’t think it’s for any of us to pass judgement.
Until your family’s house, business or way of life is under attack from domestic terrorists with an insatiable need to destroy everything and anything, then there is no telling how you would react.
The example should not be made of the people defending themselves, the examples need to be made of those destroying homes and businesses for political reasons, it is domestic terrorism by definition.
It’s a terrible message to send, that “it’s fine to be a domestic terrorist but don’t you dare try and protect yourself against them or you will be locked up”.
Come on now.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2021 14:01]
I understand where your coming from but I must respectfully disagree.
There’s no doubt the authorities did behave appallingly and completely failed in their duties but I cannot see how the scenario of having untrained vigilantes wielding unlicensed firearms (even with good intentions) is in any way a solution to this or is in any way to be condoned.
In any law enforcement agency or military body they don’t allow any personnel to be able to even access weapons without proper training and licensing.
I understand where your coming from but I must respectfully disagree.
There’s no doubt the authorities did behave appallingly and completely failed in their duties but I cannot see how the scenario of having untrained vigilantes wielding unlicensed firearms (even with good intentions) is in any way a solution to this or is in any way to be condoned.
In any law enforcement agency or military body they don’t allow any personnel to be able to even access weapons without proper training and licensing.
It’s common sense.
Are you suggesting he wasn't trained in firearm use?
Do you realise he was training to be a Police officer?
Are you aware of the Constitution second amendment "The right to Bear Arms"?
I have the right to drive cars but I still need to be trained to an adequate standard and gain a licence before I am trusted to do so.
There are lots of things I have the legal right and freedom to do but under the condition that I am trained to a legal and competent standard.
The right to be able to do something does not mean without limits.
So you are saying this boy did not have the right to defend himself and others and he should instead just watch on as they potentially burn him and others to death ? Until they are the right age of course.
I’m really struggling to understand your view. Sadly with the way society is now I feel it has an awful lot to do with his gender and race.
Let’s reverse it.
Let’s say an armed gang were sweeping through the town raping black women. Police say they don’t want to do anything about it for political reasons. Fearing that she and her friends are going to be victim to this, they stand outside some vulnerable girls home and takes a pistol in her bag for protection (unlicensed though).
The rape gang arrives and try to get to the girls home they are protecting. A rapist grabs her and tells her he’s going to kill her while trying to drag her into his car. She shoots him….
Do you say she needs to be made an example of because she shouldn’t have had a gun? Does anyone dare suggest that? Does anyone even dare to think it?
Unlikely.
People have the right to defend themselves (and each other) at any age, the gun misdemeanour pales into insignificance when it comes to the right for one to defend themselves. Which is why the judge has dropped the case on the gun charge.
If you were about to be murdered by a terrorist, you told me to shoot the guy before he cuts your head off and I say “sorry mate, don’t have a licence for this gun. I’ll get in trouble”.
You would look at me as if I was stupid. Rightly so.
This is why you should not make examples out of victims - ever, but the terrorists that forced the victims to defend themselves.
The only reason this isn’t the case here is because it’s been made a political case rather than a human rights one.
The fact he is a white male, and even worse - a white male Republican - means he can be treated like scum instead. There would be absolute outrage that this was even in court by the media had he not been white and protecting himself in the same way. Celebrities would be falling over themselves to tweet how awful it is.
The narrative would be how racist the country, society and the justice system is that a black man had to take it upon himself to defend his life and now being punished for it.
Reckon I’m wrong?
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 0:32]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 23:26 - Nov 15 by Dr_Parnassus
So you are saying this boy did not have the right to defend himself and others and he should instead just watch on as they potentially burn him and others to death ? Until they are the right age of course.
I’m really struggling to understand your view. Sadly with the way society is now I feel it has an awful lot to do with his gender and race.
Let’s reverse it.
Let’s say an armed gang were sweeping through the town raping black women. Police say they don’t want to do anything about it for political reasons. Fearing that she and her friends are going to be victim to this, they stand outside some vulnerable girls home and takes a pistol in her bag for protection (unlicensed though).
The rape gang arrives and try to get to the girls home they are protecting. A rapist grabs her and tells her he’s going to kill her while trying to drag her into his car. She shoots him….
Do you say she needs to be made an example of because she shouldn’t have had a gun? Does anyone dare suggest that? Does anyone even dare to think it?
Unlikely.
People have the right to defend themselves (and each other) at any age, the gun misdemeanour pales into insignificance when it comes to the right for one to defend themselves. Which is why the judge has dropped the case on the gun charge.
If you were about to be murdered by a terrorist, you told me to shoot the guy before he cuts your head off and I say “sorry mate, don’t have a licence for this gun. I’ll get in trouble”.
You would look at me as if I was stupid. Rightly so.
This is why you should not make examples out of victims - ever, but the terrorists that forced the victims to defend themselves.
The only reason this isn’t the case here is because it’s been made a political case rather than a human rights one.
The fact he is a white male, and even worse - a white male Republican - means he can be treated like scum instead. There would be absolute outrage that this was even in court by the media had he not been white and protecting himself in the same way. Celebrities would be falling over themselves to tweet how awful it is.
The narrative would be how racist the country, society and the justice system is that a black man had to take it upon himself to defend his life and now being punished for it.
Reckon I’m wrong?
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 0:32]
What utter arse waffle. I already had said he had the right to defend himself and that those deaths were not murder as a result. And what does gender and race have to do with it? Are you one of these bizarre wokeist types that views everything through the prism of identity politics? His race and gender are literally irrelevant. It’s only the strange, obsessed, woke nutters that make such a big deal out of race and gender. Identity politics is such a childish and immature way of looking at things.
You then also try to bombard me with strange and irrelevant tales of rape and terrorism. Of course you should be able to defend yourself if attacked by a rape gang or a terrorist. I have never said any different.
What I have said is that it is incredibly irresponsible for people when things are kicking off to get tooled up and get involved. Even with good intentions. Using your weird terrorist analogy if the IRA have claimed they have put a bomb in my local Sainsbury’s and the bomb squad are stuck in traffic it would be incredibly dangerous for an untrained child to walk in there and start fiddling with the wires himself. He would be putting himself and everyone else at risk. It’s not his place to defuse that bomb.
We shouldn’t be encouraging or condoning any sort of vigilante behaviour. Especially where high powered guns are involved. It was a massively irresponsible thing to do.
What utter arse waffle. I already had said he had the right to defend himself and that those deaths were not murder as a result. And what does gender and race have to do with it? Are you one of these bizarre wokeist types that views everything through the prism of identity politics? His race and gender are literally irrelevant. It’s only the strange, obsessed, woke nutters that make such a big deal out of race and gender. Identity politics is such a childish and immature way of looking at things.
You then also try to bombard me with strange and irrelevant tales of rape and terrorism. Of course you should be able to defend yourself if attacked by a rape gang or a terrorist. I have never said any different.
What I have said is that it is incredibly irresponsible for people when things are kicking off to get tooled up and get involved. Even with good intentions. Using your weird terrorist analogy if the IRA have claimed they have put a bomb in my local Sainsbury’s and the bomb squad are stuck in traffic it would be incredibly dangerous for an untrained child to walk in there and start fiddling with the wires himself. He would be putting himself and everyone else at risk. It’s not his place to defuse that bomb.
We shouldn’t be encouraging or condoning any sort of vigilante behaviour. Especially where high powered guns are involved. It was a massively irresponsible thing to do.
I just told you what gender and race had to do with it. We are in a social movement where there are sections of society that get treated differently depending on your historical level of perceived oppression.
Rittenhouse happens to be a white male so it's open season on him regardless of the circumstances. Some of the comments regarding him have been nothing short of stomach tuning. But again, he's white, he's a male and he's a Republican so these things are allowed.
Agree its the woke nutters that make a song and dance and view everything through race, gender and politics. That's why the woke nutters have gone after him, it's exactly what I am referring to. You can count the media under that umbrella too.
I didn't bombard you with anything.
I removed the initial incident and replaced it in another with people of differing genders and race, suddenly it changes everything with regards to how people look at it. I notice you didn't answer me, but I am sure you wouldn't have made the same comments regarding ''making an example of him'' (or ''her'', as per my example) in my fictitious example. Am I correct? Ask yourself why.
I then put you in another scenario so you could see it through the victims eyes. Gun laws are of no consequence when it comes to defending yourself, and you most definitely would want me to use my unlicensed gun to defend you should you be attacked by a terrorist. Right?... Would you then advocate for the State to make an example out of me after I saved you? Or not? Again ask yourself why.
Nobody got tooled up and got involved.
You are trying to paint a false picture that this was one group of people that attacked another because they were causing trouble and used their guns they brought to help. That is not the case.
Rittenhouse did not use his gun to fend off rioters. He used his gun to fend off attackers. It is a huge difference. With regards to the rioters, he was there with a fire extinguisher to put out fires and provide medical assistance to anyone caught up in it. That is all.
I think everybody in the community should be encouraged to help out their community and anyone under attack. It's strange you think we should make an example out of someone for doing so.
If someone was going to burn down your neighbor's house, would you stop them? Would you put the fire out if you could with a fire extinguisher? Or would you sit back and watch because you don't think you should get involved? Some neighbor you would be.
That is all that happened on that night. However during those actions, some of the criminals tried to kill him. That is when he defended himself.
Surely you should be instead wanting to make an example of the political domestic terrorists that forced members of the public to decide whether to sit back and watch or try and stop them, or lessen the impact by putting out the fires...(which is what happened).
Kyle spent most of his night providing medical assistance, putting out fires (one dumpster fire which was being pushed towards a petrol station intentionally) and directing the public away. I think that is wonderful behavior for such a young man, don't you? His gun was simply there for protection, protection it turns out he very much needed.
He ONLY SHOT once he was attacked. Something you appear to agree with.
So what is your message then? Don't help the community when under attack from armed terrorists... and if you do and they then try to kill you, don't use a weapon and take your chances with your hands, regardless of how much danger that then puts you in - because weapons are bad?
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 4:51]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 04:28 - Nov 16 by Dr_Parnassus
I just told you what gender and race had to do with it. We are in a social movement where there are sections of society that get treated differently depending on your historical level of perceived oppression.
Rittenhouse happens to be a white male so it's open season on him regardless of the circumstances. Some of the comments regarding him have been nothing short of stomach tuning. But again, he's white, he's a male and he's a Republican so these things are allowed.
Agree its the woke nutters that make a song and dance and view everything through race, gender and politics. That's why the woke nutters have gone after him, it's exactly what I am referring to. You can count the media under that umbrella too.
I didn't bombard you with anything.
I removed the initial incident and replaced it in another with people of differing genders and race, suddenly it changes everything with regards to how people look at it. I notice you didn't answer me, but I am sure you wouldn't have made the same comments regarding ''making an example of him'' (or ''her'', as per my example) in my fictitious example. Am I correct? Ask yourself why.
I then put you in another scenario so you could see it through the victims eyes. Gun laws are of no consequence when it comes to defending yourself, and you most definitely would want me to use my unlicensed gun to defend you should you be attacked by a terrorist. Right?... Would you then advocate for the State to make an example out of me after I saved you? Or not? Again ask yourself why.
Nobody got tooled up and got involved.
You are trying to paint a false picture that this was one group of people that attacked another because they were causing trouble and used their guns they brought to help. That is not the case.
Rittenhouse did not use his gun to fend off rioters. He used his gun to fend off attackers. It is a huge difference. With regards to the rioters, he was there with a fire extinguisher to put out fires and provide medical assistance to anyone caught up in it. That is all.
I think everybody in the community should be encouraged to help out their community and anyone under attack. It's strange you think we should make an example out of someone for doing so.
If someone was going to burn down your neighbor's house, would you stop them? Would you put the fire out if you could with a fire extinguisher? Or would you sit back and watch because you don't think you should get involved? Some neighbor you would be.
That is all that happened on that night. However during those actions, some of the criminals tried to kill him. That is when he defended himself.
Surely you should be instead wanting to make an example of the political domestic terrorists that forced members of the public to decide whether to sit back and watch or try and stop them, or lessen the impact by putting out the fires...(which is what happened).
Kyle spent most of his night providing medical assistance, putting out fires (one dumpster fire which was being pushed towards a petrol station intentionally) and directing the public away. I think that is wonderful behavior for such a young man, don't you? His gun was simply there for protection, protection it turns out he very much needed.
He ONLY SHOT once he was attacked. Something you appear to agree with.
So what is your message then? Don't help the community when under attack from armed terrorists... and if you do and they then try to kill you, don't use a weapon and take your chances with your hands, regardless of how much danger that then puts you in - because weapons are bad?
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 4:51]
The point is clear. I’ve explained it several times. It’s not a difficult point to comprehend so here it is again. His actions on that night to make the decision to pick up an assault rifle he wasn’t trained or licensed to use, leave the safety of his home and take it upon himself to “defend a business” in the midst of social unrest was entirely stupid and irresponsible despite his honourable intentions. I have no doubt the people who he shot were seriously trying to hurt him and in that case I’ve got no problem with him shooting in self defence.
I may be mad but I don’t believe minors should be armed with assault rifles and deployed as bespoke security in the middle of a virtual war zone. And he should be held up as a prime example of how making stupid decisions can result in major consequences. Even if he gets off all charges (which he very well may) he’s still an irresponsible idiot and we shouldn’t condone or support this sort of behaviour, regardless of politics.
The point is clear. I’ve explained it several times. It’s not a difficult point to comprehend so here it is again. His actions on that night to make the decision to pick up an assault rifle he wasn’t trained or licensed to use, leave the safety of his home and take it upon himself to “defend a business” in the midst of social unrest was entirely stupid and irresponsible despite his honourable intentions. I have no doubt the people who he shot were seriously trying to hurt him and in that case I’ve got no problem with him shooting in self defence.
I may be mad but I don’t believe minors should be armed with assault rifles and deployed as bespoke security in the middle of a virtual war zone. And he should be held up as a prime example of how making stupid decisions can result in major consequences. Even if he gets off all charges (which he very well may) he’s still an irresponsible idiot and we shouldn’t condone or support this sort of behaviour, regardless of politics.
It is a difficult point to comprehend though.
You want to make an example of him, despite understanding he only used his weapon to protect himself.
So your suggestion is that the public should not help the community when under attack from domestic terrorists. You want to make an example of anyone who does…. Unless they do so completely unarmed and willing to be killed for helping.
It’s just strange why you are focussing on trying to stop future instances of the public helping each other as opposed to focusing on trying to stop domestic terrorism.
Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 07:25 - Nov 16 by Dr_Parnassus
It is a difficult point to comprehend though.
You want to make an example of him, despite understanding he only used his weapon to protect himself.
So your suggestion is that the public should not help the community when under attack from domestic terrorists. You want to make an example of anyone who does…. Unless they do so completely unarmed and willing to be killed for helping.
It’s just strange why you are focussing on trying to stop future instances of the public helping each other as opposed to focusing on trying to stop domestic terrorism.
Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Did he make himself a target by carrying an assault rifle?
Kyle Rittenhouse on 07:25 - Nov 16 by Dr_Parnassus
It is a difficult point to comprehend though.
You want to make an example of him, despite understanding he only used his weapon to protect himself.
So your suggestion is that the public should not help the community when under attack from domestic terrorists. You want to make an example of anyone who does…. Unless they do so completely unarmed and willing to be killed for helping.
It’s just strange why you are focussing on trying to stop future instances of the public helping each other as opposed to focusing on trying to stop domestic terrorism.
Makes absolutely no sense to me.
You’re right I’ve seen the light. With your clever arguments I have changed my opinion and now strongly believe that untrained children should be routinely armed with assault rifles to defend our freedoms from the bad guys.
Just like ISIS do.
Another thing, what was this kid planning to do if the business he was protecting was attacked anyway? Shoot them? This is not a healthy mindset. That all of life’s problems can be solved with the squeeze of a trigger? I’m comfortable with my stance on this.
Did he make himself a target by carrying an assault rifle?
No, you are legally allowed to open carry in the state.
The term “assault rife” is used as hyperbole. In the eyes of law it’s no different to carrying a pistol. It’s a constitutionally protected right.
Appearing to be complying with a constitutional right (which he did appear to be of course, not being licensed is not something anyone would have been aware of) is not something that is then able to make you a target.
It was there for protection not to attack. And luckily he had it as it turns out he certainly needed it as he ended up with a loaded gun pointed at his head.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 8:07]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
