• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rittenhouse. What an American Hero. Will Biden apologise?

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
You really should watch the video.

The video doesn't disprove that Rittenhouse was indeed an untrained 17-year-old who went to an area of unrest while in possession of a firearm.

This doesn't mean he wasn't defending himself when he shot three people, but in my opinion, it means the laws that allowed that in the first place need significant rethinking and reform.

I've noticed that most non-Americans who have commented on the whole situation on the forum so far agree the laws are unreasonable, and I suspect part of this is because the idea of such easy access to firearms, let alone for a minor who can't even drink or give sexual consent, is unconscionable and quite foreign to many people outside the U.S. It's fuel for this exact kind of situation.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The video doesn't disprove that Rittenhouse was indeed an untrained 17-year-old who went to an area of unrest while in possession of a firearm.

This doesn't mean he wasn't defending himself when he shot three people, but in my opinion, it means the laws that allowed that in the first place need significant rethinking and reform.

I've noticed that most non-Americans who have commented on the whole situation on the forum so far agree the laws are unreasonable, and I suspect part of this is because the idea of such easy access to firearms, let alone for a minor who can't even drink or give sexual consent, is unconscionable and quite foreign to many people outside the U.S. It's fuel for this exact kind of situation.
What is a "whp"?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It might help you get a clearer picture of the situation.

I believe my picture is clear from the bits of the trial and transcripts i have read. To me it's simple. A teenager took a weapon illegally into an area of unrest and wound up killing 2 people. In most other countries he would have faced manslaughter (or equivalent) charges and would no doubt have been found guilty. However the American justice system is not like that of most of the world and he was found not guilty of the charges against him. I personally think a poor prosecution tilted the trial in his favour.

I am not arguing american law though nor have i said he "murdered". What i do say is that he killed people, (no argument to that)

The situation is that the american public are now even more divided between left and right and the rest of the world is left scratching its head
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe my picture is clear from the bits of the trial and transcripts i have read. To me it's simple. A teenager took a weapon illegally into an area of unrest and wound up killing 2 people. In most other countries he would have faced manslaughter (or equivalent) charges and would no doubt have been found guilty. However the American justice system is not like that of most of the world and he was found not guilty of the charges against him. I personally think a poor prosecution tilted the trial in his favour.

I am not arguing american law though nor have i said he "murdered". What i do say is that he killed people, (no argument to that)

The situation is that the american public are now even more divided between left and right and the rest of the world is left scratching its head

According to the judge, taking the weapon there wasn't a violation of Wisconsin's law. If that's indeed the case, it actually seems even more problematic to me than if it were illegal and Rittenhouse had still been acquitted of that charge.

That it's legal means the problem shifts from being about Rittenhouse to being about an entire state's law and said law's tacit enabling of irresponsible and dangerous possession of guns.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Well I guess we can all go home now. :rolleyes:
- he admits to being there as an unlicensed security guard.

- he described how he was threatened several times by Rosenbaum but didn't make any effort to simply withdraw from the scene after any of them.

- nothing in his description contradicted the idea that Huber thought he was intervening against an active shooter.

- he corroborated Grosskreutz's account and described doing what Grosskreutz had good reason to take as a threatening action.

His interview confirms that he was there illegally and had plenty of opportunity to de-escalate the situation before he ended up shooting three people (and shooting at a fourth).
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
The video doesn't disprove that Rittenhouse was indeed an untrained 17-year-old who went to an area of unrest while in possession of a firearm.

What people seem to be missing, or ignoring, is the fact that in this country a lot of people have come to see a need for things like untrained teenagers with assault weapons patrolling areas of unrest.

I don't know what it was like anywhere else but I'll tell you something; the riots we had here in 2020-- including the 25+ people who were killed --- didn't get anywhere near the media play the Kyle Incident did.

It's lopsided reporting. I guess we're supposed to go into mourning for a child molester and a wife beater who got shot because, hello, they were running at a scared teenager holding an assault weapon, and ignore the the cops who were killed for doing their job or the innocent bystanders who got killed because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This doesn't mean he wasn't defending himself when he shot three people, but in my opinion, it means the laws that allowed that in the first place need significant rethinking and reform.

You mean, for instance, the laws that allowed someone who's been convicted of molesting 11 children to just walk around free and feel
confident enough in his immunity from legal consequences to grab a skateboard and go into a crowd looking for somebody's head to bash in? I agree, definitely something wrong there.

I've noticed that most non-Americans who have commented on the whole situation on the forum so far agree the laws are unreasonable, and I suspect part of this is because the idea of such easy access to firearms, let alone for a minor who can't even drink or give sexual consent, is unconscionable and quite foreign to many people outside the U.S. It's fuel for this exact kind of situation.

I think that's because most people outside of the US see the problems we're having here as kind of a spectator sport, so you have the luxury of rooting for whatever team you favor.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You mean, for instance, the laws that allowed someone who's been convicted of molesting 11 children to just walk around free and feel
confident enough in his immunity from legal consequences to grab a skateboard and go into a crowd looking for somebody's head to bash in? I agree
"Somebody" in this situation being someone who:

- had just killed one person
- had just tried to kill another
- was still threatening people - including the person who intervened - with his weapon

It's hypocritical to argue that Rittenhouse had a right to self-defense with deadly force, but Huber and Grosskreutz didn't.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
"Somebody" in this situation being someone who:

- had just killed one person
- had just tried to kill another
- was still threatening people - including the person who intervened - with his weapon

It's hypocritical to argue that Rittenhouse had a right to self-defense with deadly force, but Huber and Grosskreutz didn't.

Only if you think chasing someone is a form of self-defense.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
According to the judge, taking the weapon there wasn't a violation of Wisconsin's law. If that's indeed the case, it actually seems even more problematic to me than if it were illegal and Rittenhouse had still been acquitted of that charge.

That it's legal means the problem shifts from being about Rittenhouse to being about an entire state's law and said law's tacit enabling of irresponsible and dangerous possession of guns.
There's also how the law deals with the duty to withdraw.

Rittenhouse describes how Rosenbaum threatened him several times and acted aggressively to the point that other protestors were steering clear of him, but Rittenhouse never chose to simply leave, despite - if we believe his account - having plenty of opportunity to do so.

Wisconsin isn't a "stand your ground" state, but apparently the jury didn't feel that Rittenhouse had enough of a duty to withdraw without violence to negate his "self-defense" argument.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
What people seem to be missing, or ignoring, is the fact that in this country a lot of people have come to see a need for things like untrained teenagers with assault weapons patrolling areas of unrest.

I don't know what it was like anywhere else but I'll tell you something; the riots we had here in 2020-- including the 25+ people who were killed --- didn't get anywhere near the media play the Kyle Incident did.

It's lopsided reporting. I guess we're supposed to go into mourning for a child molester and a wife beater who got shot because, hello, they were running at a scared teenager holding an assault weapon, and ignore the the cops who were killed for doing their job or the innocent bystanders who got killed because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That many people see such a need seems to me to also indicate that the police either need better training and preparation for dealing with severe situations--something that has been widely talked about in the media after the killing of George Floyd--or an increase in numbers in some places. The U.S. spends almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars annually on its military; why would it be unable to address such a deficit in police preparedness or numbers?

Relying on untrained teenagers to do the police's job simply doesn't address the core issues. Not even the riots were properly addressed by that; all that happened was more polarization and basically encouragement of militia-like behavior.

You mean, for instance, the laws that allowed someone who's been convicted of molesting 11 children to just walk around free and feel
confident enough in his immunity from legal consequences to grab a skateboard and go into a crowd looking for somebody's head to bash in? I agree, definitely something wrong there.

I agree molesting 11 children should warrant life behind bars or at least many years of rehabilitation and prison, but I think the backgrounds of each of the involved parties should have little or no bearing on the assessment of their actions in that specific situation.

This is also why I don't agree with the arguments bringing up Rittenhouse's political affiliation as a reason to say he had intended to kill people that night: he could have questionable beliefs but not murder anyone. The only thing that matters is the specific context of the actions, not his background.

I think that's because most people outside of the US see the problems we're having here as kind of a spectator sport, so you have the luxury of rooting for whatever team you favor.

As far as I see Rittenhouse's case, it's not, or at least shouldn't be, about political affiliation but about what led to it and how to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in the future. I think Wisconsin's gun laws are a major factor in that, so whether one is conservative, liberal, or otherwise shouldn't influence their assessment of the factors involved in the case.

I don't think it should take anyone a membership in a specific party to see that it's a recipe for disaster to make it legal for untrained 17-year-olds to walk into places of riots or protests with a firearm, much less a semi-automatic one. If lack of sufficient police presence contributed to that, then the state should also address it to prevent untrained individuals from being encouraged by others to patrol areas of unrest again.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You think a teenage killer armed at a public disturbance with an unregistered gun is a hero??? Wow. If that's your vision of an American hero i feel sorry for America.

America is now as divided as it can be ideologically. The right is no longer interested in what the left is. It has different and incompatible values and methods, and an incompatible vision for what America should look like. We see this when as soon as one party takes power from the other, there's a race to undo what came before.

And look at the voting in Congress. One can see that the right and left are just about as diametrically opposed as is possible on most issues. Votes consistently look like the recent House vote, with almost all members of each party voting together and against the other party.

Once, they shared the same values and vision more or less, with differences being mostly how to achieve that vision. Both supported democracy and the rule of law. Both had interest in the welfare of the American people. Both wanted a safe and prosperous nation that was a moral beacon and an exemplar to the world.

That's long gone. What are the values and vision of a party (and the people who vote for them) that refuses to convict a rogue president of his impeachable offenses, votes against any bill that helps people, refuses to censure a member of Congress who generated a video of the president and another member of Congress being violently threatened, and fights against the insurrection being investigated?

These aren't Americans except technically. I'd say that most of the left understands that these aren't fellow anythings. They're not on America's side.

And their opinions have no value to the left except in helping anticipate what destruction they intend next, just as with the Taliban. Looks like its crippling voting rights and eliminating reproductive freedoms on the docket. Why should the left care that the right wants these things apart from strategizing how to defeat them?

What would the left care what the Taliban thought about the Rittenhouse trial? Nothing at all. Likewise with the American right's opinion. Why would that be respected or valued? The right thinks Rittenhouse is a hero and was not guilty? Of course they do. I'll bet the Taliban does as well. And Putin. But not the American left, who consider all of them enemies of Americanism.

Oh, but it was Biden and he used all his leftist Cronies to lie, cheat, give false evidence and to even use public protests as a weapon to threaten the jury. The worst of the worst, and the bad, bad stuff these leftists can do was done against Rittenhause. The Dem leaders, the Dem prosecutors, the Liberal leftist media, Biden slandering Rittenhouse!

I don't believe that, but I wouldn't object if I did.

That's always my reaction when the right cries foul. You say the election was stolen? I don't believe that either, but once again, I not only wouldn't object if I did believe it, I would celebrate the cunning of the Democrats to steal the government from the right and leave no trace. I wish that could be done with every election. I support democratic principles, but not for them, only for others that share those values with me.

McConnel says that the Democrats are guilty of a partisan power grab? I hope so, and I hope it's successful.
 
Top