testtest

Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ranger715

Operator
Many have observed that Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to carry a rifle into an area of unrest. True, but only because it is always unwise to stick your neck out to try and do good. That doesn't mean it's wrong, or bad. He was there to try and protect people and property from violent, destructive mobs, who had already destroyed a great deal. If that's not a situation that calls for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, what could be? The police obviously weren't doing it.

It's unwise in that he subjected himself to danger and legal repercussions. But is that not necessary to do good? If you see a woman being beaten badly in the Safeway parking lot by muggers, I think you should intervene. Could that end up causing you a world of trouble, and thus be "unwise?" Of course. Is it wrong? No.

We value our right to bear arms because we want to defend the good. I don't want to live in a world where we refrain from doing good because we fear the cost imposed by the angry mob, unscrupulous lawyers, a hostile media, and the criminals themselves. If we don't stand up to them, who will?
 
Many have observed that Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to carry a rifle into an area of unrest. True, but only because it is always unwise to stick your neck out to try and do good. That doesn't mean it's wrong, or bad. He was there to try and protect people and property from violent, destructive mobs, who had already destroyed a great deal. If that's not a situation that calls for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, what could be? The police obviously weren't doing it.

It's unwise in that he subjected himself to danger and legal repercussions. But is that not necessary to do good? If you see a woman being beaten badly in the Safeway parking lot by muggers, I think you should intervene. Could that end up causing you a world of trouble, and thus be "unwise?" Of course. Is it wrong? No.

We value our right to bear arms because we want to defend the good. I don't want to live in a world where we refrain from doing good because we fear the cost imposed by the angry mob, unscrupulous lawyers, a hostile media, and the criminals themselves. If we don't stand up to them, who will?
For evil to triumph is when good men do nothing.
 

JCJ

Operator
For evil to triumph is when good men do nothing.
I agree with your statement "for evil to triump is when good men do nothing". But why are people who standup protesting evil, vilified an deemed unpatriotic when they vote or use their voice to enact change? If the guy that Rittenhouse shot in the arm had first shot Rittenhouse and killed him to protect himself and life of others, would he be considered a hero?
 

JCJ

Operator
Many have observed that Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to carry a rifle into an area of unrest. True, but only because it is always unwise to stick your neck out to try and do good. That doesn't mean it's wrong, or bad. He was there to try and protect people and property from violent, destructive mobs, who had already destroyed a great deal. If that's not a situation that calls for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, what could be? The police obviously weren't doing it.

It's unwise in that he subjected himself to danger and legal repercussions. But is that not necessary to do good? If you see a woman being beaten badly in the Safeway parking lot by muggers, I think you should intervene. Could that end up causing you a world of trouble, and thus be "unwise?" Of course. Is it wrong? No.

We value our right to bear arms because we want to defend the good. I don't want to live in a world where we refrain from doing good because we fear the cost imposed by the angry mob, unscrupulous lawyers, a hostile media, and the criminals themselves. If we don't stand up to them, who will?
The only people that died that night were the people that Rittenhouse shot. So HE was the danger that the people needed protection from. He was a loose cannon looking for a chance to shoot someone just like George Zimmerman. We all need to remember, we all have a right to arm and defend ourselves. The subjective and narrow view of who is dood and who is evil is the debate. One day the hunter will become the hunted.
 
The only people that died that night were the people that Rittenhouse shot. So HE was the danger that the people needed protection from. He was a loose cannon looking for a chance to shoot someone just like George Zimmerman. We all need to remember, we all have a right to arm and defend ourselves. The subjective and narrow view of who is dood and who is evil is the debate. One day the hunter will become the hunted.
No, the people who died were the aggressors. Rittenhouse started and ended the night defending people, property and himself. An angry mob damaging property and stealing from innocent store owners put themselves in the position for armed civilians to interact with them. Especially when the police were ordered to stand down. We cannot let our country be subject to lawlessness gone amok.
 
But - and I say this not having delved into the case - I’ll always wonder what business he had going where he did and for what purpose he thought he had.

I don’t mean this in snippy way…but it doesn’t matter. We don’t have to have an approved reason to go somewhere where we’re legally allowed to be.

So whether he had good intentions, bad intentions, or no intentions at all really doesn’t matter. All that matters is that he acted in self defense when he was attacked with force.

Now…in a separate conversation, we could all discuss the wisdom of a 17 year old heading into a protest armed with a rifle. As a father, it probably wouldn’t be what I’d suggest to my minor son (who’s now 25 years old), but he’s not to blame for some scumbags attacking him.
 

Ranger715

Operator
The only people that died that night were the people that Rittenhouse shot. So HE was the danger that the people needed protection from. He was a loose cannon looking for a chance to shoot someone just like George Zimmerman. We all need to remember, we all have a right to arm and defend ourselves. The subjective and narrow view of who is dood and who is evil is the debate. One day the hunter will become the hunted.
So you're the good guy only if you're the one that gets killed? Hmmm. I think you are incorrect about the nature of the events and the people involved. But if you aren't persuaded about that by now, I'm sure I can't do it. Have a good day.
 

benstt

Professional
Founding Member
So you're the good guy only if you're the one that gets killed? Hmmm. I think you are incorrect about the nature of the events and the people involved. But if you aren't persuaded about that by now, I'm sure I can't do it. Have a good day.
I think you're making it too black and white. The first guy killed attacked Kyle, based on some evidence and testimony. The next two shot thought they were stopping and active shooter based very little information. They were not at all wrong or evil. They were trying to do what a lot of us have talked about doing if we encountered an active shooter.
 
The only people that died that night were the people that Rittenhouse shot. So HE was the danger that the people needed protection from. He was a loose cannon looking for a chance to shoot someone just like George Zimmerman. We all need to remember, we all have a right to arm and defend ourselves. The subjective and narrow view of who is dood and who is evil is the debate. One day the hunter will become the hunted.
I must disagree with assertions of evil intent by Rittenhouse and Zimmerman. Self defense was evident in both cases. Those remarks are scurrilous in view of the evidence, and reflect a lack of knowledge of the facts of both cases. In both cases they took actions leading up to the shootings that were ill advised, but were there legally and there was never any evidence that either of them set out to shoot someone. Please don't parrot the liberal media's distortions.
 
I think you're making it too black and white. The first guy killed attacked Kyle, based on some evidence and testimony. The next two shot thought they were stopping and active shooter based very little information. They were not at all wrong or evil. They were trying to do what a lot of us have talked about doing if we encountered an active shooter.
And Rittenhouse still thought he was being attacked and his life threatened, even if their motives were thinking they were stopping an active shooter. And Rittenhouse was running TOWARDS the police when they were attacking him. I don’t think it’s reasonable for Rittenhouse to have dropped his weapon and surrendered to those pursuing him. As far as he knew, they were just out to get him. He easily could have been severely injured or killed.
 

JCJ

Operator
No, the people who died were the aggressors. Rittenhouse started and ended the night defending people, property and himself. An angry mob damaging property and stealing from innocent store owners put themselves in the position for armed civilians to interact with them. Especially when the police were ordered to stand down. We cannot let our country be subject to lawlessness gone amok.
I beg to differ, he was the aggressor when he showed up openly carrying and AR-15 and I am sure there was some verbal exchanges between Kyle and the "aggressors". I wasn't there but that's my guess. Anyway, based on your logic if I see someone breaking into my neighbor's car I can use lethal force to stop them? I don't think so!! If approach them with my gun in hand, they have a right to defend themselves, as do I, if they approach me. The aggressor is fluid and changing in the moment.
 

10mmLife

Moderator
Staff member
Founding Member
Judging by the prior records of the deceased who were allegedly trying to stop an alleged active shooter I'd think that their intentions were more to cause harm then to save anyone.

In the end I'm glad justice prevailed and Kyle got off as he was proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence was presented.

Here's an article with link to the criminal records of the deceased that I found with a quick Google search. The first aggressor that was shot had a disgusting record and should have never even seen daylight as a free man ever again after being found guilty of the heinous sexual crimes he committed and he would never have been there to start this long drawn out mess if the courts were more punishing for child predators.

 
The only people that died that night were the people that Rittenhouse shot. So HE was the danger that the people needed protection from. He was a loose cannon looking for a chance to shoot someone just like George Zimmerman. We all need to remember, we all have a right to arm and defend ourselves. The subjective and narrow view of who is dood and who is evil is the debate. One day the hunter will become the hunted.
So, the people lighting fires and destroying property weren't dangerous, while the kid who was putting out fires, offering medical assistance, and cleaning graffiti, is the danger.
It's interesting that in one breath you say that he was just looking for a chance to shoot but in the very next sentence you say that we all have a right to arm and defend ourselves, which is exactly what he did. So which is it?
My question to you is; did you watch the trial and see the evidence? Additionally, were the others there with weapons loose canons looking for a fight or could it be that Kyle was attacked and had to defend himself?
Lastly, "The subjective and narrow view of who is dood and who is evil is the debate."

If that's the debate then let me settle it for you, as subjective as it may be. He shot a pedophile who had raped 5 young boys and another person with a history of domestic violence. The 3rd was a criminal with a gun. We know who the evil people there were, yet some want to portray them as good people.

The evidence was pretty clear.
 

JCJ

Operator
And Rittenhouse still thought he was being attacked and his life threatened, even if their motives were thinking they were stopping an active shooter. And Rittenhouse was running TOWARDS the police when they were attacking him. I don’t think it’s reasonable for Rittenhouse to have dropped his weapon and surrendered to those pursuing him. As far as he knew, they were just out to get him. He easily could have been severely injured or killed.
The guys he killed thought they were being attacked also and they chose to try to do something about just like the passengers on the high-jacked planes on 9/11. He could have put his gun down and fought like real men use to do. That is what happens when guys act tough and when they get in over their head, they reach for a gun. He came equipped to escalate trouble then hide behind "self-defense". Like I said earlier, the protestors should have armed themselves too, that was their biggest mistake. I am not saying Kyle didn't have the have a right to be there, and armed or to defend himself. Eventhough it was a immature gunowner decision IMO, he had to right to. But, I am saying the others had the same right.
 
I beg to differ, he was the aggressor when he showed up openly carrying and AR-15 and I am sure there was some verbal exchanges between Kyle and the "aggressors". I wasn't there but that's my guess. Anyway, based on your logic if I see someone breaking into my neighbor's car I can use lethal force to stop them? I don't think so!! If approach them with my gun in hand, they have a right to defend themselves, as do I, if they approach me. The aggressor is fluid and changing in the moment.
So the multitude of people there with AR-15's were all aggressors then, even if they were hired to protect personal property?
"The aggressor is fluid and changing in the moment."
Being chased down by a pedophile in the middle of a riot kinda makes the other guy the aggressor; so does attacking with a deadly object, stomping on a kids head, as well as pointing a weapon at their head while they're on the ground.
 

JCJ

Operator
So, the people lighting fires and destroying property weren't dangerous, while the kid who was putting out fires, offering medical assistance, and cleaning graffiti, is the danger.
It's interesting that in one breath you say that he was just looking for a chance to shoot but in the very next sentence you say that we all have a right to arm and defend ourselves, which is exactly what he did. So which is it?
My question to you is; did you watch the trial and see the evidence? Additionally, were the others there with weapons loose canons looking for a fight or could it be that Kyle was attacked and had to defend himself?
Lastly, "The subjective and narrow view of who is dood and who is evil is the debate."

If that's the debate then let me settle it for you, as subjective as it may be. He shot a pedophile who had raped 5 young boys and another person with a history of domestic violence. The 3rd was a criminal with a gun. We know who the evil people there were, yet some want to portray them as good people.

The evidence was pretty clear.
Yes, I watched the trial nightly and I too did learn that the people he shot were no angels. That's not the point. They were not raping kids in the moment. My question to you, is why were people rioting to begin with? Based on your logic if anyone didn't like the Jan 6 attack on the Capital and Capital police, they should have gone out there and started shooting at the vandals that ransacked the Capital building and threatened harm to elected officials?? Rittenhouse, to them was also a criminal with a gun in the moment. To many, he still is.
 
The guys he killed thought they were being attacked also and they chose to try to do something about
Interesting; aside from the pedophile they all chased Kyle down and took him to the ground while trying to take his rifle. Hard to attack someone when you're running away from them. You're litterally defending a pedophile and 2 other criminals. Anyway, I'm just glad that the 12 people's whose opinions on the issue really matter got it right.
 

JCJ

Operator
So the multitude of people there with AR-15's were all aggressors then, even if they were hired to protect personal property?
"The aggressor is fluid and changing in the moment."
Being chased down by a pedophile in the middle of a riot kinda makes the other guy the aggressor; so does attacking with a deadly object, stomping on a kids head, as well as pointing a weapon at their head while they're on the ground.
Its my understanding by watching and reading the various news sources, no one hired Rittenhouse to protect anything. He was not wearing anything that distinguished him a licensed armed security guard. So yes, its very easy to perceive him as an aggressor. He was lucky to have a favorable judge that suppressed evidence from being introduced during the trial. Kyle had no idea that guy was a pedophile and neither did any of us watching the video. So if I know a person has a criminal past, I can shoot and kill them if I encounter them not committing the crimes they committed in the past. Help me understand. If they perceived him to be an active shooter, yes, stomping on his head, kicking him and pointing a gun at him is reasonable in that moment. And lastly, no he was not a kid he was doing big boy stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top