Remove this Banner Ad

Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

  • Thread starter Thread starter RedVest4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It gives me no pleasure to say it, but some of the RWers in this thread appear to have a better grasp of the facts than some of the folks going after them.

I maintain that Kyle Rittenhouse was a peanut who should not have been running around with an AR-15. And he might be convicted for something along those lines i.e. unlawful possession of a firearm. But, to me, he does seem to have a reasonable case for self-defence in the killings.

The difficulty for folks is reconciling this: a) the spectacle of this dumbshit teenager running round with a powerful weapon, clearly reckless, perhaps provocative; b) he was then attacked and defended himself with lethal force that might actually be considered legal.

I'm not "defending" Rittenhouse. I don't think anyone should be eager to do that. The fact that he was there, with an AR-15, should not be some cause celebre for the RW. But once there, he didn't necessarily deserve to be attacked. That wasn't legal. And he had a right to self-defence. Was lethal force warranted? I can't say, but one guy aimed a gun at him.

We have to separate those issues.

Was he a peanut who had no place being there? Is it gross that he was running around with an AR-15? Is the entire situation an indictment on American gun culture and "open carry" laws?

Yes to all the above. And defending him being there, heavily armed, is dumb.

But the other question is: did he act in self-defence after being attacked?

I'd say that's at least a maybe.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Sweet Jesus said:
It gives me no pleasure to say it, but some of the RWers in this thread appear to have a better grasp of the facts than some of the folks going after them.

I maintain that Kyle Rittenhouse was a peanut who should not have been running around with an AR-15. And he might be convicted for something along those lines i.e. unlawful possession of a firearm. But, to me, he does seem to have a reasonable case for self-defence in the killings.

The difficulty for folks is reconciling this: a) the spectacle of this dumbshit teenager running round with a powerful weapon, clearly reckless, perhaps provocative; b) he was then attacked and defended himself with lethal force that might actually be considered legal.

I'm not "defending" Rittenhouse. I don't think anyone should be eager to do that. The fact that he was there, with an AR-15, should not be some cause celebre for the RW. But once there, he didn't necessarily deserve to be attacked. That wasn't legal. And he had a right to self-defence. Was lethal force warranted? I can't say, but one guy aimed a gun at him.

We have to separate those issues.

Was he a peanut who had no place being there? Is it gross that he was running around with an AR-15? Is the entire situation an indictment on American gun culture and "open carry" laws?

Yes to all the above. And defending him being there, heavily armed, is dumb.

But the other question is: did he act in self-defence after being attacked?

I'd say that's at least a maybe.
Click to expand...

Too many viewing the case from the position of what they want the law to be, rather than what it is.
 
Not surprised at all this piece of trash got off.
Self-Defence my ass, you are either racist or extremely dumb as dog **** to believe that (probably both)
 
Wasn't that surprising. They made him sweat for it though. Didn't think it was going to be that straight forward for him.

Anyway, hope that Monday night TV dinner his mum prepared isn't too cold and eaten.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
It gives me no pleasure to say it, but some of the RWers in this thread appear to have a better grasp of the facts than some of the folks going after them.

I maintain that Kyle Rittenhouse was a peanut who should not have been running around with an AR-15. And he might be convicted for something along those lines i.e. unlawful possession of a firearm. But, to me, he does seem to have a reasonable case for self-defence in the killings.

The difficulty for folks is reconciling this: a) the spectacle of this dumbshit teenager running round with a powerful weapon, clearly reckless, perhaps provocative; b) he was then attacked and defended himself with lethal force that might actually be considered legal.

I'm not "defending" Rittenhouse. I don't think anyone should be eager to do that. The fact that he was there, with an AR-15, should not be some cause celebre for the RW. But once there, he didn't necessarily deserve to be attacked. That wasn't legal. And he had a right to self-defence. Was lethal force warranted? I can't say, but one guy aimed a gun at him.

We have to separate those issues.

Was he a peanut who had no place being there? Is it gross that he was running around with an AR-15? Is the entire situation an indictment on American gun culture and "open carry" laws?

Yes to all the above. And defending him being there, heavily armed, is dumb.

But the other question is: did he act in self-defence after being attacked?

I'd say that's at least a maybe.
Click to expand...
You're on a roll, SJ.
 
I read the DA made the decision to press charges within 3 days of the events, before details of the events were clear, can anyone confirm that?

It also seemed the prosecution was chosen from a footy cheer squad, that was not reported but my observation.

Disappointment and failure seemed to be built in from very early on.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Aristotle Pickett said:
I tend to agree with Paul Keating that America is no longer a civil society.
Any civil society would condemn these blatant vigilante killings.
It's a racist country where white people get different treatment under the law.
The fact that murdered people in this case can't be referred to as victims confirms this.
The country has no gun control, there's regular school shootings, millions of homeless people, no universal health care and this Rittenhouse kid walking around the court like he owns the place.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure when the States was a civil society, perhaps post WW2 for a decade or two? There have always been schisms on show to the world.

50 years ago their president, his brother, and 2 prominent civil rights leaders and protesters were murdered in plain view. I can't imagine how socially unhinged thing would have been then. More latterly, the States lies and obfuscates itself into self serving wars that the world ignores or supports. The USA supported the Khmer Rouge all the way through to early 90s. Some things are incomprehensible, I don't see these times as more uncivil than before. But happy to see evidence.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
It gives me no pleasure to say it, but some of the RWers in this thread appear to have a better grasp of the facts than some of the folks going after them.
Click to expand...
Malifice went through the law a few days ago and it seemed a sound bet he’d be found not guilty.
 
Malifice said:
Did he? My understanding was the armed victim didnt even have his firearm drawn.
Click to expand...

He held fire until the guy had his gun pointed at him and the guy admitted that on the stand.

gaige-grosskreutz-gun.png
 
Chief said:
Malifice went through the law a few days ago and it seemed a sound bet he’d be found not guilty.
Click to expand...
Whether it was rule of law or just what we've come to expect from American justice, I don't think too many thought a guilty verdict would be passed.
 
Are they the same fake tears and facial contortions Rittenhouse is showing on hearing the verdict as he did when he took the stand? For a young bloke, what an accomplished actor.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Red Black and Blue said:
He held fire until the guy had his gun pointed at him and the guy admitted that on the stand.

gaige-grosskreutz-gun.png
Click to expand...
Lucky the other bloke held fire the whole time. Who gets to call it self defence? The guy who shot first?
 
Chief said:
Lucky the other bloke held fire the whole time. Who gets to call it self defence? The guy who shot first?
Click to expand...

Well I don't think he held fire as much as he was slower to the trigger. They can both... the exact reason Gaige hasn't been charged either. Gaige's perception of the incident wasn't reality, he thought he was approaching an active shooter. He was wrong.

There was an incident in the states now where a cop by mistake shot a guy who had taken out an active shooter. He hasn't been charged either. Rightfully so. Tragedies are some times that and don't need someone to pay for them.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Colorado cop who shot dead man who killed shooter won't be charged

No criminal charges will be filed against Colorado Officer Kraig Brownlow who shot dead Good Samaritan Johnny Hurley, 40, after he killed and disarmed would-be mass shooter Ronald Troyke, 59
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Chief said:
Lucky the other bloke held fire the whole time. Who gets to call it self defence? The guy who shot first?
Click to expand...

Who was chasing who? One bloke on the ground in a vulnerable position having just been been kicked and beaten. Grosskreutz was chasing him and advancing on him with his gun drawn. Pretty obvious.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom