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.
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.
They aren’t clever arguments, they are a statement of exactly what unfolded.
Nobody is saying that children “should” be armed with assault rifles. Not sure how you are coming to that conclusion.
What is being said is that the public WILL defend themselves against attacks and they will protect the community against domestic terrorism. Whether you think they should or not is largely irrelevant.
No, he was not planning to shoot them. The business he was protecting was attacked, he put out the fire with a fire extinguisher. He then was attacked, he then defended himself. He did not attack the perpetrators.
Again you are attributing him using his rifle to stop rioting, quite incorrectly of course. He went to the aid of the community by acting as an EMT, a fireman and a warden to keep public out of danger - the rifle was to protect himself, not to attack others.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the case before making any stance you claim to be comfortable with.
Because wanting to make an example of a victim of domestic terrorism isn’t something you should be remotely comfortable with.
The excellent video was posted earlier by another poster, I’ll post it again.
It will show you what he was doing in the area, it will show you what his reactions were to rioters for rioting (not shooting them like you suggested) and it will show when he actually did use his rifle.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 8:21]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 08:00 - Nov 16 by Dr_Parnassus
They aren’t clever arguments, they are a statement of exactly what unfolded.
Nobody is saying that children “should” be armed with assault rifles. Not sure how you are coming to that conclusion.
What is being said is that the public WILL defend themselves against attacks and they will protect the community against domestic terrorism. Whether you think they should or not is largely irrelevant.
No, he was not planning to shoot them. The business he was protecting was attacked, he put out the fire with a fire extinguisher. He then was attacked, he then defended himself. He did not attack the perpetrators.
Again you are attributing him using his rifle to stop rioting, quite incorrectly of course. He went to the aid of the community by acting as an EMT, a fireman and a warden to keep public out of danger - the rifle was to protect himself, not to attack others.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the case before making any stance you claim to be comfortable with.
Because wanting to make an example of a victim of domestic terrorism isn’t something you should be remotely comfortable with.
The excellent video was posted earlier by another poster, I’ll post it again.
It will show you what he was doing in the area, it will show you what his reactions were to rioters for rioting (not shooting them like you suggested) and it will show when he actually did use his rifle.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 8:21]
You really are having trouble understanding.
The comment about children being routinely armed was clearly and obviously sardonic. It was not intended to be taken literally.
Again for about the fifth time I have no problem with the fact the public WILL defend themselves and their community. It’s a given and enshrined in law and rightly so. However deaths and injuries caused in self defence often go to trial. Many violent offenders and murderers claim they were acting in self defence. So this trial is entirely proper.
It’s good that he wasn’t planning to shoot them. It’s a shame he could not protect the business he was supposed to be protecting though.
I am not attributing him using his rifle to stop rioting. I have said since post one that I believe his intentions were good. I’m not against this kid. Like many before him and there’ll be many after him he’s made a stupid decision that put him in a dangerous and completely avoidable situation and now he has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life.
I am familiar with the case, but I don’t need the details of this case to come to the conclusion I am glad that minors don’t routinely have access to firearms in this country. You only need to look at their constant school shootings and through the roof death figures to see the untold misery those things cause across the pond in untrained hands. Hell even in highly trained hands people still regularly die or suffer severe injuries. Was it you that said you saw that 50.cal blow up in that guys face on YouTube? These things aren’t to be messed around with. They aren’t toys. They are made for one purpose only. To kill.
I’ll make an example of him because he’s an idiot. A decent well intentioned idiot. But if you act recklessly and put yourself in needlessly dangerous situations it’s only going to end one way unless you’re very lucky. If he had just stayed at home that night he’d be living a normal life now. He’d be a normal adult man with a career and prospects. But he made the wrong choice and is paying for it now with this ordeal he has gone through.
The video doesn’t work. But I don’t need to watch it anyway. For the sixth or seventh time, I am not saying he was any sort of troublemaker or up to no good. I have said consistently I believe he had good intentions. Christ this is hard work. I also never suggested he shot at anybody (edit apart from in self defence) You’re making things up now.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 9:46]
0
Kyle Rittenhouse on 10:02 - Nov 16 with 1211 views
The comment about children being routinely armed was clearly and obviously sardonic. It was not intended to be taken literally.
Again for about the fifth time I have no problem with the fact the public WILL defend themselves and their community. It’s a given and enshrined in law and rightly so. However deaths and injuries caused in self defence often go to trial. Many violent offenders and murderers claim they were acting in self defence. So this trial is entirely proper.
It’s good that he wasn’t planning to shoot them. It’s a shame he could not protect the business he was supposed to be protecting though.
I am not attributing him using his rifle to stop rioting. I have said since post one that I believe his intentions were good. I’m not against this kid. Like many before him and there’ll be many after him he’s made a stupid decision that put him in a dangerous and completely avoidable situation and now he has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life.
I am familiar with the case, but I don’t need the details of this case to come to the conclusion I am glad that minors don’t routinely have access to firearms in this country. You only need to look at their constant school shootings and through the roof death figures to see the untold misery those things cause across the pond in untrained hands. Hell even in highly trained hands people still regularly die or suffer severe injuries. Was it you that said you saw that 50.cal blow up in that guys face on YouTube? These things aren’t to be messed around with. They aren’t toys. They are made for one purpose only. To kill.
I’ll make an example of him because he’s an idiot. A decent well intentioned idiot. But if you act recklessly and put yourself in needlessly dangerous situations it’s only going to end one way unless you’re very lucky. If he had just stayed at home that night he’d be living a normal life now. He’d be a normal adult man with a career and prospects. But he made the wrong choice and is paying for it now with this ordeal he has gone through.
The video doesn’t work. But I don’t need to watch it anyway. For the sixth or seventh time, I am not saying he was any sort of troublemaker or up to no good. I have said consistently I believe he had good intentions. Christ this is hard work. I also never suggested he shot at anybody (edit apart from in self defence) You’re making things up now.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 9:46]
I am having trouble understanding, yes.
Who said the trial ''wasn't proper''? My issue with what you said is that you wanted the State to make an example out of him.
A member of the public who defended himself against getting murdered. It seems an awfully odd stance to take when of course you could be condemning the domestic terrorists trying to kill him instead.
What do you mean he couldn't protect the business? I just told you that he put out fires started there, that is protecting it isn't it?
I am not making anything up.
You said ''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?''
So you were suggesting that his mindset for taking the gun was/or could have been to shoot people trying to destroy a business. If you were familiar with the case you would know this is not the case at all. It was for much needed protection, defense not attack.
On one hand you are saying you understand the public will defend the community 'It’s a given and enshrined in law and rightly so'', you said. On the other you are saying you want to make an example out of him for doing just that.
Makes no sense.
How about just condemning the domestic terrorists instead? You have posted 5 times now and haven't done it once, instead you wish to condemn him for protecting people and himself. Its backward.
Agreed, this is very hard work.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 10:04]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 10:02 - Nov 16 by Dr_Parnassus
I am having trouble understanding, yes.
Who said the trial ''wasn't proper''? My issue with what you said is that you wanted the State to make an example out of him.
A member of the public who defended himself against getting murdered. It seems an awfully odd stance to take when of course you could be condemning the domestic terrorists trying to kill him instead.
What do you mean he couldn't protect the business? I just told you that he put out fires started there, that is protecting it isn't it?
I am not making anything up.
You said ''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?''
So you were suggesting that his mindset for taking the gun was/or could have been to shoot people trying to destroy a business. If you were familiar with the case you would know this is not the case at all. It was for much needed protection, defense not attack.
On one hand you are saying you understand the public will defend the community 'It’s a given and enshrined in law and rightly so'', you said. On the other you are saying you want to make an example out of him for doing just that.
Makes no sense.
How about just condemning the domestic terrorists instead? You have posted 5 times now and haven't done it once, instead you wish to condemn him for protecting people and himself. Its backward.
Agreed, this is very hard work.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 10:04]
Yet another poster who can't admit being wrong when presented with the actual facts.
-1
Kyle Rittenhouse on 11:54 - Nov 16 with 1180 views
Yet another poster who can't admit being wrong when presented with the actual facts.
Yes I agree with you. I should have switched off when he invoked race and gender. Whenever identity politics comes crawling out of the woodwork you’ve pretty much reached the bottom of the barrel.
0
Kyle Rittenhouse on 12:21 - Nov 16 with 1170 views
Yes I agree with you. I should have switched off when he invoked race and gender. Whenever identity politics comes crawling out of the woodwork you’ve pretty much reached the bottom of the barrel.
Im pretty sure he was referring to you.
I didn’t invoke anything, I am factually telling you why Kyle Rittenhouse is getting the reaction he is. It has to do with his race, his gender and his politics.
I don’t think the trial would even be where it was at if he was anything other than a white male Republican. He is hated and called all the names under the sun as a result, even people making rape jokes regarding him in prison. Just vile.
Judge dismisses weapons charge at Rittenhouse murder trial https://t.co/dkmbBsW7Ww So, any white male has a licenses to KILL!
The #RittenhouseTrial displays yet again that our “justice” system is racist.⁰⁰How would this trial be going if he was a Black 17 yr old that crossed state lines illegally carrying an AR-15 and shot 3 white protesters?⁰⁰We need real justice in the legal system. This isn’t it.
If you wanted an example of 10,000+ more outrageous tweets referencing his skin colour, gender and politics - I could do it without much problem.
Being a white male in this day and age means you are bottom the the pile when it comes to how you are viewed by society. If you are straight too, and even worse a Republican - then God help you, you have the full deck stacked against you.
Get your head out of the sand. You are part of the problem.
The National Guard is being deployed outside the courthouse ahead of the verdict as people know he’s not guilty of murder but want their pound of white, male, Republican flesh.
They are even pre-empting it and calling the judge racist.
Threatening him and the jurors. Despicable.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 14:37]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
It turns out he was legally carrying the gun, hence the charge dropped.
PolitiFact is being roasted for claiming that Rittenhouse’s possession of a firearm was not legal, after the charge was dropped in court.
In their August 2020 fact-check, the portal argued that in Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old and since Mr Rittenhouse was 17 at the time, “he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.”
“In Wisconsin, it is legal for adults to carry firearms in public without a license if the gun is visible. However, to open carry, you must be at least 18 years old,” PolitiFact added.
The claim came under fire on Monday after the defense argued successfully that Wisconsin’s statute was limited to short-barrelled shotguns or rifles, while Mr Rittenhouse was carrying an AR-style semi-automatic rifle with a long barrel, leading to the dismissal of the charge against him.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 12:21 - Nov 16 by Dr_Parnassus
Im pretty sure he was referring to you.
I didn’t invoke anything, I am factually telling you why Kyle Rittenhouse is getting the reaction he is. It has to do with his race, his gender and his politics.
I don’t think the trial would even be where it was at if he was anything other than a white male Republican. He is hated and called all the names under the sun as a result, even people making rape jokes regarding him in prison. Just vile.
Judge dismisses weapons charge at Rittenhouse murder trial https://t.co/dkmbBsW7Ww So, any white male has a licenses to KILL!
The #RittenhouseTrial displays yet again that our “justice” system is racist.⁰⁰How would this trial be going if he was a Black 17 yr old that crossed state lines illegally carrying an AR-15 and shot 3 white protesters?⁰⁰We need real justice in the legal system. This isn’t it.
If you wanted an example of 10,000+ more outrageous tweets referencing his skin colour, gender and politics - I could do it without much problem.
Being a white male in this day and age means you are bottom the the pile when it comes to how you are viewed by society. If you are straight too, and even worse a Republican - then God help you, you have the full deck stacked against you.
Get your head out of the sand. You are part of the problem.
The National Guard is being deployed outside the courthouse ahead of the verdict as people know he’s not guilty of murder but want their pound of white, male, Republican flesh.
They are even pre-empting it and calling the judge racist.
Threatening him and the jurors. Despicable.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 14:37]
My mistake. I thought it would be impossible for there to be two people silly enough to believe vigilante kids with semi automatic rifles is an acceptable state of affairs but then I realised it’s the resident anti-vax nutter.
Look I’m not going to get involved with that race baiting nonsense. Anyone who indulges in that sort of vacuous diatribe online are not worth listening to. A sensible, intelligent person judges an individual on their actions and their character. An idiot makes judgements based on race and gender. Don’t lump me in with them. I am not part of the problem as I don’t partake in that nonsense. If the problem is people attacking each other based on ill conceived prejudice regarding race and gender and I would never do that then I am the opposite of the problem. In fact I am the solution. If everyone had my attitude there’d be no racism, no sexism, no BLM, no EDL.
0
Kyle Rittenhouse on 14:29 - Nov 16 with 1092 views
My mistake. I thought it would be impossible for there to be two people silly enough to believe vigilante kids with semi automatic rifles is an acceptable state of affairs but then I realised it’s the resident anti-vax nutter.
Look I’m not going to get involved with that race baiting nonsense. Anyone who indulges in that sort of vacuous diatribe online are not worth listening to. A sensible, intelligent person judges an individual on their actions and their character. An idiot makes judgements based on race and gender. Don’t lump me in with them. I am not part of the problem as I don’t partake in that nonsense. If the problem is people attacking each other based on ill conceived prejudice regarding race and gender and I would never do that then I am the opposite of the problem. In fact I am the solution. If everyone had my attitude there’d be no racism, no sexism, no BLM, no EDL.
Being an acceptable state of affairs is not something anyone has claimed. It’s awful.
Our difference seems to be you want the public punished for helping each other against terrorists and I want the terrorists punished instead.
That is where we are disagreeing, isn’t it?
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 14:29 - Nov 16 by Dr_Parnassus
Being an acceptable state of affairs is not something anyone has claimed. It’s awful.
Our difference seems to be you want the public punished for helping each other against terrorists and I want the terrorists punished instead.
That is where we are disagreeing, isn’t it?
Obviously I want terrorists to be punished. And I have already said what seems like fifteen billion times that the public should be able to defend themselves against terrorism. I believe Rittenhouse’s motives were honourable. I believe he was genuinely trying to help.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this.
0
Kyle Rittenhouse on 15:19 - Nov 16 with 1022 views
Obviously I want terrorists to be punished. And I have already said what seems like fifteen billion times that the public should be able to defend themselves against terrorism. I believe Rittenhouse’s motives were honourable. I believe he was genuinely trying to help.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this.
So you think the public should be able to defend themselves.
Recognise he was legally carrying a weapon for self defence and only fired under those circumstances.
Recognise he was perfectly within his rights to pull the trigger when he did.
… yet want the State to make an example out of him?
This is the part I don’t understand.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 15:19 - Nov 16 by Dr_Parnassus
So you think the public should be able to defend themselves.
Recognise he was legally carrying a weapon for self defence and only fired under those circumstances.
Recognise he was perfectly within his rights to pull the trigger when he did.
… yet want the State to make an example out of him?
This is the part I don’t understand.
Make an example of is a bit strong, I probably didn’t word that right. I think it should serve as an example that sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as his choice to put himself in that situation was dangerous and unnecessary and now he’s living through the consequences.
Make an example of is a bit strong, I probably didn’t word that right. I think it should serve as an example that sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as his choice to put himself in that situation was dangerous and unnecessary and now he’s living through the consequences.
But lots of things are unnecessary, doesn’t mean they are wrong.
I take you back to the reason I asked you about some other scenarios I put to you. Like your neighbours house is being burned down, would you help?
You would be unnecessarily putting yourself in harms way if you did. But it would be the honourable thing to do.
If the thugs burning down that house turn on you for helping, you would no doubt defend yourself.
That is what happened here.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 12:38 - Nov 16 by Dr_Parnassus
Anyway, back to the subject.
It turns out he was legally carrying the gun, hence the charge dropped.
PolitiFact is being roasted for claiming that Rittenhouse’s possession of a firearm was not legal, after the charge was dropped in court.
In their August 2020 fact-check, the portal argued that in Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old and since Mr Rittenhouse was 17 at the time, “he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.”
“In Wisconsin, it is legal for adults to carry firearms in public without a license if the gun is visible. However, to open carry, you must be at least 18 years old,” PolitiFact added.
The claim came under fire on Monday after the defense argued successfully that Wisconsin’s statute was limited to short-barrelled shotguns or rifles, while Mr Rittenhouse was carrying an AR-style semi-automatic rifle with a long barrel, leading to the dismissal of the charge against him.
When you live in the uk it’s hard to digest the last paragraph.
At 17 you can’t have a short barrelled shot gun but you can have an AR style semi-automatic rifle.
But that’s the law and it has been applied. It just seems mad to us.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 12:11 - Nov 12 by Dr_Parnassus
The only potential crime there is illegally owning a gun. First offence for that I think I read was a $500 fine. Second offence 2 years in jail.
With regards to the two people shot, one was about to cave his head in with a skateboard as he were on the floor, the other was in an armed group who discharged their firearm first while chasing him before attacking Rittenhouse and trying to take his gun.
That last part is important. You are permitted to use anything up to and including lethal force to stop a potentially lethal threat. Someone trying to take your gun is a lethal threat.
Try to take a police officers gun. You will meet the same fate, for the same reason.
However due to the political nature of this event, I fear for the boy.
[Post edited 18 Nov 2021 8:16]
The gun charge was thrown out because he legally owned it. That was yet another lie thrown out by this media-driven circus.
Rittenhouse is about to be acquitted, and CNN and MSDNC will be largely responsible for the riots that immediately occur after this.
His father lives in Kenosha, and Kyle lives 20 miles away.
Meanwhile, rioters traveled from all over the country to burn down Kenosha because a cop shot a guy who was trying to stab him with a knife.
And yet the media still ensure they state the police officer was white and Jacob Blake, black.
If Jacob Blake was white. Firstly it wouldn’t have even been newsworthy, secondly nobody would care and thirdly they absolutely wouldn’t be stating both were white.
They do it because it suggests racism is why the cop shot… as opposed to the fact that the man who raped a woman next to her child was wielding a knife.
The media is criminal and they have created the vast majority of the unrest simply because they wanted the political benefit off the carnage. They should be on that stand in front of the jury.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
You don’t get “let off” when you haven’t done anything wrong.
You get found not guilty.
Your attitude though is exactly why people are concerned for the justice system, with threats of riots unless you get the verdict you clearly want.
Which is that an innocent man gets locked up for defending himself just so some people feel they have a political victory. Just gross.
For shame.
They are even being allowed to consider “lesser charges” now because they know the original murder ones have fallen flat. They are now being allowed to consider “reckless endangerment”. The charges are being changed mid trial depending on which arguments are crumbling.
Just awful really.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 22:28]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
When you live in the uk it’s hard to digest the last paragraph.
At 17 you can’t have a short barrelled shot gun but you can have an AR style semi-automatic rifle.
But that’s the law and it has been applied. It just seems mad to us.
This..............
Basket case of a country.
And fully agree with DrP regarding the media, they are no longer fit for purpose, if they ever were and start to be held accountable. Always been scummy, but seems a whole new level over the last few years or maybe its my awareness.
My mistake. I thought it would be impossible for there to be two people silly enough to believe vigilante kids with semi automatic rifles is an acceptable state of affairs but then I realised it’s the resident anti-vax nutter.
Look I’m not going to get involved with that race baiting nonsense. Anyone who indulges in that sort of vacuous diatribe online are not worth listening to. A sensible, intelligent person judges an individual on their actions and their character. An idiot makes judgements based on race and gender. Don’t lump me in with them. I am not part of the problem as I don’t partake in that nonsense. If the problem is people attacking each other based on ill conceived prejudice regarding race and gender and I would never do that then I am the opposite of the problem. In fact I am the solution. If everyone had my attitude there’d be no racism, no sexism, no BLM, no EDL.
"If everyone had my attitude there’d be no racism, no sexism, no BLM, no EDL. "
What an lovely idealistic person you are. It is just a pity you do not live in the real world where there are nasty horrible people who beat, rape, torture and kill you at the drop of a hat.
Just maybe if you were a resident of town being attacked you might have a different attitude.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
