Rittenhouse, the proof is in the pudding....

[ChristineM]

Well, I've been shot at, threatened and a shotgun has been pulled (SWAT blocked off my block over that lunatic). So I guess I have been in such situations. I didn't have the means to rightfully blow them away, unfortunately.

Yes, i too have been trying in situations where someone could have been killed had i felt that way out. I didn't

 

[ChristineM]

"Pro life" typically refers to anti-abortion beliefs.
Killing in self defense is different.

It would.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm pro-innocent life.

Who decides. I have suggested the court. Any other ideas?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So you see someone with a rifle and you would attack them if armed? Isn't that the opposite of self-defense?

I think you're taking my joke a bit literally. Lol

 

[ChristineM]

If it was legal for him to carry a gun, I don't see a problem with that. Maybe idiots shouldn't attack people with rifles and they would still be alive. Talk about a Darwin award.

I believe it was illegal, he is underage

 

[Estro Felino]

Nope. It's a tragic incident where multiple problems occurred. But Kyle, and the adults who encouraged him, need to share in this responsibility.

But he is a kid.
I am more preoccupied about the adults who still act as kids.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But he is a kid.
I am more preoccupied about the adults who still act as kids.

Yup. He was a kid. So why was he carrying a rifle in an area of civil unrest?

 

[Estro Felino]

Yup. He was a kid. So why was he carrying a rifle in an area of civil unrest?

I would have ignored him if I had seen him.
Why did they decide to chase him ?

After all...they were many and he was alone.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I would have ignored him if I had seen him.
Why did they decide to chase him ?

After all...they were many and he was alone.

A kid, left by himself with a rifle in an area of civil unrest, where tensions were high due to continued racial and class conflicts.

Should they have engaged him? No. He also should not have been there in the first place.

 

[Estro Felino]

A kid, left by himself with a rifle in an area of civil unrest, where tensions were high due to continued racial and class conflicts.

Should they have engaged him? No. He also should not have been there in the first place.

These tensions were supposed to be monitored by the law enforcement.
Whch I fully support.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I believe it was illegal, he is underage

It's currently undecided if it was legal for him to carry a gun or not, as I understand it. We'll see.

 

[Revoltingest]

But he is a kid.
I am more preoccupied about the adults who still act as kids.

This is important....17 years old might be the
height of the clueless decision making phase.
The ratio of hormones to brain development
is maxed out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup. He was a kid. So why was he carrying a rifle in an area of civil unrest?

Inadequate parental supervision.
Untrained kid with a rifle in that situation...a recipe for carnage.

 

[InChrist]

Yeah, two deranged lunatics who thought it was perfectly fine to violently assault someone in the street. Humanity is better off without them.

Certainly better off without the child molester Joseph Rosenbaum.

“Newly released Joseph Rosenbaum sex offender documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Joseph Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old.”
Joseph Rosenbaum Sex Offender Arizona '02 Criminal Complaint

 

[SA Huguenot]

Let's assume for argument's sake that Rittenhouse really did think that he was justified in shooting the first person.

Even when someone shoots in self-defense, he would be a fool to think that he wouldn't be disarmed, detained, and questioned by the police until they were satisfied that the shooting really was in self-defense. Shooting someone in self-defense doesn't give you the right to shoot your way out.

OTOH, put yourself in Grosskreutz's shoes: you know that Rittenhouse has just killed two people and has the means to kill again. It would have been entirely justified for Grosskreutz to shoot Rittenhouse.

I hope it never happens to you.
I was in war conflict, and believe me, you will shoot to survive.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Yes, but it makes no difference to the fact that he killed people.

Again.
I hope it never happens that you have to fight your way out of such an event.

You will never survive for thinking killing an attacker has some right to live.
They dont.
Anyone who attackes anyone with the intent to kill, forfeited his right to live.
period.

 

[SA Huguenot]

And he didn't want to kill the people he killed?

The gun fetishists like to say that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Well, if someone who has just killed two people and is still brandishing their gun isn't a situation that calls for a "good guy with a gun," what would be?

Yes, he did not want to kill them, he had to to live.
Funny how none of the persons on this forum who posts here, says a single word about the BLM and Antifa hooligans who went on a rampage, burning private propperty, looting etc.
Do you even know that being caught in such acts, allows any citizen to shoot to kill to prevent the crime?
Why dont you say anything about the Democrat leaders who forced the police to stand back and to allow this destruction?

And you have a big mouth against a man who tried to flee to the Police for protection!

Shame on the BLM.
Shame on Antifa...
Shame on the Democratic party...
Shame on those socialist communist leaders...

Shame on any person who think burning down a city is somehow justice!!!
Such people are destroying the civilisation created by the greatest country in the west.
How the hell can anyone think they have the right to ban the police, burn down a city, destroy private propperty, and have the right to accuse a man who decided to defend such for trying to save his own life.

America has a sick leftist rotten mold that must be unmasked, and held accountable for their actions.

Long live the Idea of Men and Women who know they can become whatever they want if they work for it!
Damned are those lazy incompetant annarchist socialists who can only want to take from those who worked for their propperty.

They dont belong on the streets, but in jail!
For life!

Tell yu what!
Come and try to burn my car, or house, or businuss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but it makes no difference to the fact that he killed people.

Actually it does make a difference. People who are breaking the law still have right to life. That is why if Rittenhouse had targeted the rioters he would have been guilty of murder. No problem. Unfortunately some of the rioters tried to attack him. He may have broken the law by being there with that gun. And carrying a gun in such a situation may be illegal (it should be in my opinion). But he did not attack first. He did not even fire first, though the first gunshot did not come from any of his attackers.

Before the event he as photographed carrying a fire extinguisher in the area. He may have been trying to put out fires started by the rioters. When the videos of him start he was running from a group of rioters and was trapped among some cars. That was when the first shot rang out He was then attacked by Rosenbaum, who was unarmed. but when one is part of an armed mob one is effectively armed and he shot him. He stopped for a while, but was chased again and he ran. One person caught up to him hitting him on the head and knocking him down. Another kicked his as he ran over and past him. The third struck him on the head with the edge of his skateboard and was getting read to do some more damage. He was shot and died. Another person came up, with a hand gun, at first it looked like he was going to point it away but then it swung back at Kyle. He shot him and only ruined his arm.

The third person that was shot admitted that he pointed his gun at Kyle while he was on the ground in trial yesterday.

It is looking real bad for the prosecution.

I did not like the murder charge from the start. It is excessive. There were lesser charges that they could have filed, ones that still would have resulted in years of prison time, but it is probably too late. I do not like politically or emotionally based trials. The charges are often excessive and far too often the guilty part gets off without any punishment.

 

[SA Huguenot]

What does it matter? Assume it was one of your children killed. Would you still be as blase?

I disciplined my children.
I wacked their bums when they stole, or threw something at a tv or so.
They learned to respect people, police, and propperty.
They never broke the law so far, and they are well ballanced citizens.
If ever they are killed because they tried to rape a woman, or tried to shoot at the police, or someone else shot them in self defence, ...
And I think my child are still an inocent being!!
I am in such a case in denial of the facts, and a fool!

You see, thats why I disciplined my children from their youth.
So they dont turn out to become Antifa terrorists, or BLM fools!

My children are not the rubbish walking in streets to loot and destroy.
They work for their living.

Do you know how many men on deathrow blames their parents, especially their mothers, fo not disciplining them when they threw tantrums when small, stealing, and assault?
They hate their parents for not giving discipline when they should have received a wack or two.
Yet the Leftist liberal snowflakes think it is fine to look a3way, hoping a misbehaved child might change if you talk, talk, talk.

Sorry, my kids are 36, 33 and 26 and they never had problems with the law.
Andso did I, and guess what, I was disciplined with a belt on my bum, 6 shots, when I misbehaved, and I saw the difference of my friends who were not.
They turned out as hooligans too.
Thanks Dad, Mom!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Yup. He was a kid. So why was he carrying a rifle in an area of civil unrest?

Civil unrest???
Realy!!!