Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

[RedVest4]

Got through what?

Can you quit cheerleading please and discuss the topic?

Who is cheerleading? Based on the facts and local law he was always going to walk. Has been my position from the OP throughout. Just took awhile for you to catch up (but credit to you unlike a few others you looked into it and came around to the same view)

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Because people are dead because some kid decided to be a tacticool ******* and arm himself and head down to a riot.

If we're just saying any kid can grab a rifle and head down to a protest or riot and shoot someone, where does that leave us?

Next protest, it becomes a free for all. Protesters (on both sides) will be bringing rifles and we've basically just OK'd vigilantism and literal armed insurgency on the streets.

The protesters on the other side already brought a gun.. or did you ignore the part of the trial were one of the shooting victims pointed a gun at Kyle first?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

At this point I'm more interested in unpacking the motivations of those trying to hang Rittenhouse for what is an open and shut self defense case. Remember there were over 30 murders committed during those rolling riots.

- Is it about the second amendment ie "you shouldn't have a gun under any circumstances even to save your own life or as a deterent to protect property" ie- If you use a gun you should go to jail no matter what preceded the shootings?
- Do people genuinely think these riots were/are a necessary part of healing race relations in the US and therefore any push back against the rioters is therefore racist?
- Is it just sceptism. You don't believe Rittenhouse was there to clear graffiti, put out fires or guard a car yard. He was a racist Trump supporter there to take the law into his own hands and kill rioters?
- Other

I'll add:
- The MSM has trained me to hate white people despite the fact that I am a white person

 

[Malifice]

Who is cheerleading? Based on the facts and local law he was always going to walk. Has been my position from the OP throughout. Just took awhile for you to catch up (but credit to you unlike a few others you looked into it and came around to the same view)

Im not here to cheerlead. If he gets off or not, that's a question of the law.

As to my own personal opinion, I dont support a society where one can grab an rifle and do what he did.

A question you seemed to falter on repeatedly when it was put to you if you would support some ANTIFA dude doing exactly what he did.

 

[kickazz]

At this point I'm more interested in unpacking the motivations of those trying to hang Rittenhouse for what is an open and shut self defense case. Remember there were over 30 murders committed during those rolling riots.

- Is it about the second amendment ie "you shouldn't have a gun under any circumstances even to save your own life or as a deterent to protect property" ie- If you use a gun you should go to jail no matter what preceded the shootings?
- Do people genuinely think these riots were/are a necessary part of healing race relations in the US and therefore any push back against the rioters is therefore racist?
- Is it just sceptism. You don't believe Rittenhouse was there to clear graffiti, put out fires or guard a car yard. He was a racist Trump supporter there to take the law into his own hands and kill rioters?
- Other

I'm in the "Other"

But first of all, I'm of the opinion that this most probably should be Not Guilty. But the options you present don't make much sense, you are wilfully neglecting much of the nuance in this debate by presenting only options that are deliberately silly.


The problem I have is that broadly, he wasn't just defending himself. He actively went to a conflict situation armed with a gun. It is sad that the police apparently for whatever reason weren't there to do their job. But that's it, it is their job. It is not the job of mobs, vigilantes or children to mete out justice or maintain law and order. If we allow that then what a bloody mess we are in for.

Ultimately, he was defending himself, and should be found not guilty. But **** me, a child enters a troublesome situation armed with a gun? That's not normal, that's not a "nothing to see here" moment. Something has to change.

 

[Malifice]

The protesters on the other side already brought a gun.. or did you ignore the part of the trial were one of the shooting victims pointed a gun at Kyle first?

Im not ignoring shit. You just cant read.

Again I dont support a scenario where anyone can just grab a gun and head down to a rally or riot.

I dont care about (and expressly didnt mention) the political leanings of the person with the gun.

 

[RedVest4]

Because people are dead because some kid decided to be a tacticool ******* and arm himself and head down to a riot.

If we're just saying any kid can grab a rifle and head down to a protest or riot and shoot someone, where does that leave us?

Next protest, it becomes a free for all. Protesters (on both sides) will be bringing rifles and we've basically just OK'd vigilantism and literal armed insurgency on the streets.

We really havent. There are unique circumstances that led to this being self defense. Im off the opinion that all of it could have been avoided if the riots werent allowed to happen in the first place. Unfortunately that wasnt the case. In the circumstances Kyle did nothing wrong. Its not illegal to have a gun. It's not illegal to be in the community in which he lived. Its not illegal to defend private property and its not illegal to put out a fire.

On the other hand arson is illegal, assault is illegal. The people who were shot are to blame as if not for their actions there would have been no shootings. Hence he walks.

 

[sherb]

The problem I have is that broadly, he wasn't just defending himself. He actively went to a conflict situation armed with a gun. It is sad that the police apparently for whatever reason weren't there to do their job. But that's it, it is their job. It is not the job of mobs, vigilantes or children to mete out justice or maintain law and order. If we allow that then what a bloody mess we are in for.

Exactly - but you simply cannot get that through the heads of the Kyle crowd, no matter how hard you try.

 

[RedVest4]

Im not here to cheerlead. If he gets off or not, that's a question of the law.

As to my own personal opinion, I dont support a society where one can grab an rifle and do what he did.

A question you seemed to falter on repeatedly when it was put to you if you would support some ANTIFA dude doing exactly what he did.

Ive answered you multiple times that if the circumstances were identical i would. I support law and order regardless of political persuasion

 

[Malifice]

We really havent. There are unique circumstances that led to this being self defense.

No, there are not. Legally or pratcially.

You think this is the last of these 'left v right' riots we'll see? This is only the beginning.

''Might grab my rifle and head on down to the Melbourne anti-vaxx protests.''

See how ****ed up that sentence is?

 

[RedVest4]

I'm in the "Other"

But first of all, I'm of the opinion that this most probably should be Not Guilty. But the options you present don't make much sense, you are wilfully neglecting much of the nuance in this debate by presenting only options that are deliberately silly.


The problem I have is that broadly, he wasn't just defending himself. He actively went to a conflict situation armed with a gun. It is sad that the police apparently for whatever reason weren't there to do their job. But that's it, it is their job. It is not the job of mobs, vigilantes or children to mete out justice or maintain law and order. If we allow that then what a bloody mess we are in for.

Ultimately, he was defending himself, and should be found not guilty. But fu** me, a child enters a troublesome situation armed with a gun? That's not normal, that's not a "nothing to see here" moment. Something has to change.

Agree. What has to change is the Police being empowered to do their job (which they weren't in selected cities last US Summer).

 

[Malifice]

Ive answered you multiple times that if the circumstances were identical i would. I support law and order regardless of political persuasion

How is greenlighting literal armed shootouts and gun battles at protests respect for law and order?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Im not ignoring sh*t. You just cant read.

Again I dont support a scenario where anyone can just grab a gun and head down to a rally or riot.

I dont care about (and expressly didnt mention) the political leanings of the person with the gun.

You said:

Next protest, it becomes a free for all. Protesters (on both sides) will be bringing rifles and we've basically just OK'd vigilantism and literal armed insurgency on the streets.

"Next protest" as if the protest this event is about wasn't already that?

 

[RedVest4]

No, there are not. Legally or pratcially.

You think this is the last of these 'left v right' riots we'll see? This is only the beginning.

''Might grab my rifle and head on down to the Melbourne anti-vaxx protests.''

See how f’ed up that sentence is?

It's illegal in Australia. If the anti-vax mobs were burning down Melbourne and Andrews stopped the police from doing anything i imagine some locals would get fairly fed up with it quickly and take matters into their own hands

 

[bourbons]

The Floyd uncle video has been circulating for a while now.

Can you link us mate?

Have looked but no dice.

 

[kickazz]

Agree. What has to change is the Police being empowered to do their job (which they weren't in selected cities last US Summer).

Agree with this.

Also not letting kiddies have guns might be worth some thought, too.

 

[RedVest4]

How is greenlighting literal armed shootouts and gun battles at protests respect for law and order?

Noone is greenlighting gun battles. But if someone attacks me (gun or no gun) im going to fight back as would any reasonable person

 

[RedVest4]

Agree with this.

Also not letting kiddies have guns might be worth some thought, too.

Maybe so but thats not the law over there. If he was 31 but all other facts were the same would your thoughts be any different?

 

[kickazz]

Noone is greenlighting gun battles. But if someone attacks me (gun or no gun) im going to fight back as would any reasonable person

If you've ever been in or witnessed a serious violent altercation you might find that fighting back is a option that is second best to fleeing or avoiding the situation altogether.

 

[Malifice]

You said:

Next protest, it becomes a free for all. Protesters (on both sides) will be bringing rifles and we've basically just OK'd vigilantism and literal armed insurgency on the streets.

Pointed out the bit for you where I expressly stated I dont care about the political leanings of the armed person.

Because you cant seem to see that otherwise.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Pointed out the bit for you where I expressly stated I dont care about the political leanings of the armed person.

Because you cant seem to see that otherwise.

Yes, i get that, i can read. The point was you said "the next protest" is where people will have riflees "on both sides" as if that wasn't the case with this protest..

 

[kickazz]

Maybe so but thats not the law over there. If he was 31 but all other facts were the same would your thoughts be any different?

Well yeah, whilst it is worse that a minor went there with a gun I'm not really cool with someone of any age being able to take guns, often assault weapons, out in public without any real oversight. But as you say, the law in America is different and to be honest it's one hell of an egg to unscramble.

 

[sherb]

Well yeah, whilst it is worse that a minor went there with a gun I'm not really cool with someone of any age being able to take guns, often assault weapons, out in public without any real oversight. But as you say, the law in America is different and to be honest it's one hell of an egg to unscramble.

The USA is one screwed country. On various levels.

 

[scoman]

And in Kyle's case, two people died.

Any other helpers get chased? Shoot people?

Remember he was, what, 15? He took an AR down to what seemed to have been called a war zone by the news feeds he was watching.

And people died because of that.

Can I ask if you have managed to read/ watch anything on this case yet? You keep coming in to this thread every day all guns blazing, yet you continue to make the most basic of errors when it comes to the case. You thought one of the victims was black, you now think Rittenhouse was 15. You also haven't managed to understand why he ended up in Kenosha in the first place. This information is everywhere. Can you try a little harder please.

What would you call a forum member who continues to post in a thread he knows nothing about, makes no attempt to know anything about, engages posters in a disengenuous way, adds next to nothing......?

 

[Malifice]

Yes, i get that, i can read. The point was you said "the next protest" is where people will have riflees "on both sides" as if that wasn't the case with this protest..

Do you support that situation?

If the answer is no, we agree so I have no idea why you're calling me out in disagreement.