Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

No not entirely,

But if a bunch of random protestors (Who have previous criminal history too) chase him and try to attack him then it kind of becomes that....

What will a jury say? who knows.

Edit: Previous criminal history does not = deserves to be shot. But if we try and see it from a jurys perspective they kind of fit the bill of a violent rioter.
Yeah your right, I meant morally not legally. It's going to be a interesting trial but since it's America I would imagine he only get's the illegal weapon charge and it signing photos in a few years.

I mean some people might actually call it a decent act to show up to defend small businesses against protesters intent on destruction, ideally the Police would do that but clearly they're unable to perform that role for whatever reason so private citizens have taken it upon themselves to defend their country against people determined to destroy it. I know that concept might seem completely alien to some.

That's becoming a vigilante and as proven time and again it's not good for a civilised society. If we was from the local area it's a different story though, travelling makes it look like he was looking for this sort of thing.
 
Yeah your right, I meant morally not legally. It's going to be a interesting trial but since it's America I would imagine he only get's the illegal weapon charge and it signing photos in a few years.



That's becoming a vigilante and as proven time and again it's not good for a civilised society. If we was from the local area it's a different story though, travelling makes it look like he was looking for this sort of thing.

He is 100% going to get convicted of being under 18 and having a firearm.

Law is pretty clear there, don't see him getting out of that one tbh.
 
That's becoming a vigilante and as proven time and again it's not good for a civilised society. If we was from the local area it's a different story though, travelling makes it look like he was looking for this sort of thing.

You've set this arbitrary measure where by because he travelled some where that apparently means he's in the wrong, I know you read that as a counter argument some where and now you're parroting it in here, but he travelled within his own country to defend a local city being vandalised. Why are you on the side of people pushing dumpsters they've set on fire into local businesses? Do you understand you're literally defending people who were out to destroy property and who decided they'd chase down and physically attack someone trying to stop that from happening?
 
You've set this arbitrary measure where by because he travelled some where that apparently means he's in the wrong, I know you read that as a counter argument some where and now you're parroting it in here, but he travelled within his own country to defend a local city being vandalised. Why are you on the side of people pushing dumpsters they've set on fire into local businesses? Do you understand you're literally defending people who were out to destroy property and who decided they'd chase down and physically attack someone trying to stop that from happening?

So if your not shooting them your supporting people rioting?................... Yeah generalisations sound ridiculous.
I hope he turns to just really wanting to protect his country, and not one of those psycho gun nuts that use situations to finally shoot someone.
 
Can you really call it defending himself when he travelled to the place armed to confront protesters ?

He didn't apparently, if you look at the details he was in the town already, he works there as a lifeguard, has family there and lives 30mins away in the same general metropolitan area.

He was there with some group of gun nuts/militia types at the invitation of (allegedly) of the local business owner who owned the car lot and two mechanic shops... he wasn't there to confront the protestors, he was there as a "medic" and apparently treated some of them... rifle there for self defence.

What seems to have happened is he later put out a bin fire, which caused a bunch of protestors to kick off at the militia guys on a petrol station forecourt, (including at least two of the people he later shot). This may be where the possible brandishing allegation @Jono8 has mentioned happened, not sure there is any footage of that though.

Either way he still got chased/pursued and tried to retreat which does seem to be pretty fundamental as far as claiming self defence regardless of any other illegality whether that be a weapons charge or the less clear brandishing issue - especially if that brandishing issue came after the agitation following the bin fire or indeed if it becomes something the protestor witnesses start sticking with and the militia witnesses deny etc...

I think an important witness will be the journalist who witnessed (and was right behind) the first guy being shot, that plus the tapes will be fundamental here.

I hope he turns to just really wanting to protect his country, and not one of those psycho gun nuts that use situations to finally shoot someone.

If he'd wanted to do that then surely he'd not actively try to run away and/or only shoot people who attacked him. Likewise why provide first aid and casuallly chat to/act friendly towards people... there seem to be various clips of militia types actively saying to the protestors that they have no beef with them just don't attack local businesses, go attack the police etc.. (presumably these gun nut/militia types are mostly libertarians etc..). Even the third guy who runs up to him he doesn't initially shoot despite the third guy being armed too, they both pause and it's only when he then makes a move that the kid shoots him, hitting his arm.
 
He didn't apparently, if you look at the details he was in the town already, he works there as a lifeguard, has family there and lives 30mins away in the same general metropolitan area.

He was there with some group of gun nuts/militia types at the invitation of (allegedly) of the local business owner who owned the car lot and two mechanic shops... he wasn't there to confront the protestors, he was there as a "medic" and apparently treated some of them... rifle there for self defence.

What seems to have happened is he later put out a bin fire, which caused a bunch of protestors to kick off at the militia guys on a petrol station forecourt, (including at least two of the people he later shot). This may be where the possible brandishing allegation @Jono8 has mentioned happened, not sure there is any footage of that though.

Either way he still got chased/pursued and tried to retreat which does seem to be pretty fundamental as far as claiming self defence regardless of any other illegality whether that be a weapons charge or the less clear brandishing issue - especially if that brandishing issue came after the agitation following the bin fire or indeed if it becomes something the protestor witnesses start sticking with and the militia witnesses deny etc...

I think an important witness will be the journalist who witnessed (and was right behind) the first guy being shot, that plus the tapes will be fundamental here.

Ok thanks, that does make a difference. I've not seen that yet.
 
You've set this arbitrary measure where by because he travelled some where that apparently means he's in the wrong, I know you read that as a counter argument some where and now you're parroting it in here, but he travelled within his own country to defend a local city being vandalised. Why are you on the side of people pushing dumpsters they've set on fire into local businesses? Do you understand you're literally defending people who were out to destroy property and who decided they'd chase down and physically attack someone trying to stop that from happening?

How is he defending people who were out to destroy property? Both groups are in the wrong here.

Criticising the vigilantes doesn't, by default, equal supporting those whom the vigilantes are going up against.
 
Ok thanks, that does make a difference. I've not seen that yet.

It's not surprising, some of the reporting on this stuff has been pure trash/partisan stuff with details deliberately missing etc..... seems like good journalism in the US is mostly found in local papers not national media whether print or TV. (edit - actually to be fair to them, the New York Times did give a good breakdown of the video clips)

Otherwise intelligent, decent shows have been dissapointing - Stephen Colbert for example portrayed the event as the kid just firing into a crowd of protestors...
 
It's not surprising, some of the reporting on this stuff has been pure trash/partisan stuff with details deliberately missing etc..... seems like good journalism in the US is mostly found in local papers not national media.

It's all about who's first out with the info, doesn't matter if that info is wrong or right you can issue a retraction later............................. that no one will bother to look at.
 
How is he defending people who were out to destroy property? Both groups are in the wrong here.

Criticising the vigilantes doesn't, by default, equal supporting those whom the vigilantes are going up against.

Why are both groups in the wrong?
 
Why are both groups in the wrong?
Because, as @MikeTheNative says, vigilanteism is never good for a civilised society and it's frankly absurd that people think it's a suitable solution in a first-world country like the USA.

This whole sordid affair is an indictment on the sorry state of American right now. No one comes out of it looking good.

It's a total failure of everyone involved, from the President and his administration; to the local authorities and the police; to the legitimate social justice activists; to the criminal rioters and looters; to the vigilante militiamen; and to the media covering it all.

The US is basically a dumpster fire right now and I can't see things improving as we get closer to the election, or after it, no matter who wins.
 
You would normally say after this sort of thing America would take a long hard look at itself about the toxic part of gun culture. But how many events have they had where nothing has changed and the extreme side just doubles down?
 
Because, as @MikeTheNative says, vigilanteism is never good for a civilised society and it's frankly absurd that people think it's a suitable solution in a first-world country like the USA.
To be fair it's easy to say that when it's not your business that's being burned to the ground. At least in this scenario they're not actively chasing after people and beating them down like Vigilantes would, just defending someone's property. They all looked pretty non-aggresive to me from the videos on the forecourt.

If the authorities aren't resourced properly or prepared to do their jobs then I say the public are quite entitled to defend the premises from the arsonists and looters. I agree that it shouldn't be necessary in a first world country either but here we are. I would have trouble with the idea of just letting these idiots reduce whole blocks to ashes unchallenged now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
You would normally say after this sort of thing America would take a long hard look at itself about the toxic part of gun culture. But how many events have they had where nothing has changed and the extreme side just doubles down?

Indeed. I expect many will point to this as a positive example of having large numbers of armed citizens.

To be fair it's easy to say that when it's not your business that's being burned to the ground. At least in this scenario they're not actively chasing after people and beating them down like Vigilantes would, just defending someone's property. They all looked pretty non-aggressive to me from the videos on the forecourt.

If the authorities aren't resourced properly or prepared to do their jobs then I say the public are quite entitled to defend the premises from the arsonists and looters. I agree that it shouldn't be necessary in a first world country either but here we are. I would have trouble with the idea of just letting these idiots reduce whole blocks to ashes unchallenged now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hence the rest of my post that you cut from the quote. :)
 
Hence the rest of my post that you cut from the quote. :)
Hah was just trying to avoid pasting too much is all and was digging at the Vigilante angle. :D

It's an absolutely mental situation and I can see it getting very nasty indeed if this isn't dealt with soon. I'm actually amazed that some gung-ho type hasn't gone full Rambo on the protestors yet with a full automatic.
 
No, the CHAS/CHOP thing mentioned was in Seattle, there were deaths and armed protestors there too, there have been several deaths across the US.
Ah, got you - nationally, not just in Kenosha.,

Here's a good Twitter thread with some more info on the situation nationally:-


ON LOOTING, RIOTING, VIOLENCE

{please RT}

RESPONSIBLE (per FBI):

Boogaloo Bois (Trumpists)
Proud Boys (Trumpists)
Militias (Trumpists)
⬛️ Anarchists (apolitical)
⬛️ Organized Crime (apolitical)

NOT RESPONSIBLE (per FBI):

BLM (progressive)
⬛️ Antifa (anti-fascist)
SOURCE1/

The FBI Finds ‘No Intel Indicating Antifa Involvement’ in Sunday’s ViolenceTrump wants to designate antifa a terrorist organization, despite lack of authority and evidence of wrongdoing.https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/antifa-trump-fbi/
SOURCE2/ "Veteran law enforcement officials point to the gulf between Barr's treatment of the left-wing protesters and far more violent right-wing elements whom the Justice Department has not prioritized."

Bill Barr Takes Charge of Trump’s Crackdown as the Military Tries to Back AwayIt’s a controversial move, even within Barr’s own department. A senior law enforcement official called it “a political ploy to make being anti-Trump look like terrorism.”https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-barr-barr-takes-charge-of-trumps-crackdown-as-military-tries-to-back-away
SOURCE3/ washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/…
SOURCE4/ THE INTERCEPT: Leaked Documents Show Police Knew Far-Right Extremists Were the Real Threat at Protests, Not "Antifa"

Link:

Leaked Documents Show Police Knew Far-Right Extremists Were the Real Threat at Protests, Not “Antifa”An analysis of leaked law enforcement documents reveals an obsession with “antifa” despite evidence of threats of violence to police and protesters.https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/

SOURCE5/

The Thin Blue Line Between Violent Pro-Trump Militias and PolicePolice in Kenosha told armed vigilantes, “We appreciate you guys. We really do.” Then one of them killed two protesters.https://theintercept.com/2020/08/28/kyle-rittenhouse-violent-pro-trump-militias-police/
SOURCE6/

FBI finds no evidence of Antifa’s involvement in national unrestThe FBI has found no evidence that the American militant anti-fascist movement Antifa was involved in violence that erupted during national protests over the death of George Floyd.https://www.ajc.com/news/fbi-finds-evidence-antifa-involvement-national-unrest/qVI3U9wb8Q6u1QEvVsJ7AJ/
SOURCE7/ washingtonpost.com/technology/202…
SOURCE8/ VOICE OF AMERICA: Four Extremist Groups Suspected of Involvement in Protest Violence

Link:

Four Extremist Groups Suspected of Involvement in Protest ViolenceAmid the ongoing U.S.https://www.voanews.com/usa/four-extremist-groups-suspected-involvement-protest-violence

SOURCE9/

A white supremacist channel on Telegram encouraged followers to incite violence during police brutality protests by 'shooting in a crowd,' according to internal DHS memoMultiple media outlets have reported on white supremacist groups weaponizing protests against police brutality to start violence.https://www.businessinsider.com/white-supremacist-telegram-channel-encourages-violence-george-floyd-protests-2020-6
SOURCE10/ Reducing what's happening now to one tweet kills nuances. For instance, there's no evidence anarchists are looting; organized criminals are. Trumpists are causing violence. Anarchists "riot" with fireworks. Different groups cause different harms. washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/0…
SOURCE11/ I'm with the overwhelming majority of Americans who think anyone dressed all in black at 1AM tossing fireworks at a courthouse is doing *nothing* productive and should go home. This is not the feed that's going to celebrate pointless, non-productive, anti-fed *LARPing*.
SOURCE12/ Just as there are many peaceful Trumpists, some peaceful Proud Boys (I think?), and Boogaloo Bois who support a violent ideology without acting on it (but screw them, still?), there are anarchists who are philosophical about it. Totally peaceful. I don't want that lost.
SOURCE13/ WSJ: "What has emerged from the protests—and in criminal charges—is a diffuse collection of...self-styled anarchists and opportunists, lone actors and clusters of alleged extremist cells, with a range of allegiances, interests and motivations."

Lone Wolves, Self-Styled Anarchists: The Disparate Actors Accused of Protest ViolenceAs flares of violence and destruction have disrupted largely peaceful demonstrations against police brutality over the past two weeks, federal and state officials have warned that members of extremis…https://www.wsj.com/articles/lone-wolves-self-styled-anarchists-the-disparate-actors-accused-of-protest-violence-11591608601
SOURCE14/ SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS: "Those accused [by the FBI and/or local authorities] of breaking the law during the liberal city's nightly rallies don't neatly fit into President Donald Trump's depiction of protesters as 'anarchists and agitators.'"

‘Anarchists and antifa’? Not according to the dataA review of court documents, social media posts and other public records from people arrested by federal and local authorities since mid-June reveals a group whose motives are as varied as the acts…https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/30/anarchists-and-antifa-not-according-to-the-data/
SOURCE15/ As the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS details, the overwhelming majority of arrests have *nothing* to do with "rioting, looting, and violence"—and it's in these *minor* arrests (that often lead to people just being released later on, or simply fined) that we find BLM protesters.
SOURCE16/ As detailed in this excerpt from PROOF OF CORRUPTION published by Macmillan, there's a whole category of person I haven't even mentioned yet, a group responsible for *much* of the criminally charged violence related to the protests: the *police*.

Proof of Corruption Floyd excerpt - MacmillanTHE FIFTH EXCERPT FROM PROOF OF CORRUPTIONNOW AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER On June 1, Trump instigates one of the most distressing events in recent American h...https://read.macmillan.com/lp/proof-of-corruption-floyd/
CONCLUSION/ What's going on at the protests is confusing. If you were going to focus on VIOLENCE, you'd look at the police, militias, and right-wing agitators. If you were focused on LOOTING, you'd look at organized crime. And if you focused on DISORDER, you'd look at anarchists.
NOTE/ We know the FBI's position on all of this from (a) internal threat assessments reported on by major media after individual events in D.C., Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere; (b) federal arrest records; and (c) on-scene major-media reports.

All of it tells us Trump is lying.
 
Hah was just trying to avoid pasting too much is all and was digging at the Vigilante angle. :D

That's fair. :)

It's an absolutely mental situation and I can see it getting very nasty indeed if this isn't dealt with soon. I'm actually amazed that some gung-ho type hasn't gone full Rambo on the protestors yet with a full automatic.

Yep, it's just waiting for a mass shooting to really light the tinderbox.

The problem is, I don't see how they are going to deal with — it needs a robust response from the authorities both at a federal and local level and they all seem incapable or unwilling to meet the challenge.
 
I'm actually amazed that some gung-ho type hasn't gone full Rambo on the protestors yet with a full automatic.

Generally, although by in no way is this for all owners, the owners of legally held firearms don't tend to be that mental and yet when they very rarely do, they almost always have some form of underlying mental issue which should have prevented them getting access to firearms in the first place. Thats why despite having an estimated 400,000,000 legally owned firearms in civilian hands, mass shootings with this huge amount of legally held firearms (46% of the worldwide total) are still incredibly rare.

Illegal firearms on the other hand, well their "owners" are already criminals so how knows how they feel about mass shootings, just looking at all the drive-by type stuff I'd say they care very little.
 
Ah, got you - nationally, not just in Kenosha.,

Here's a good Twitter thread with some more info on the situation nationally:-


That's the thing, I doubt that Trump can designate BLM or Antifa terrorists organisations - they're kind of movements etc.. too. Antifa is loosely organised... whether you want to call black block people antifa or anarchists various of them could identify as either and also be in support of BLM too. On ther other hand BLM has specific organisations which campaign, fundraise etc.. there is nothing to necessarily link those organisations with violence...
 
Back
Top Bottom