Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

You seem to be conflating what is and what isn't self defense, actively chasing someone and threatening their life isn't a case of self defense which is what all 3 individuals did.

I'm not conflating anything.

Have you all forgotten that he was holding an AR-15 style rifle??

If someone walks away from you a bit with a rifle, would you just automatically assume you are safe?

Someone walking away from you with a rifle is meaningless. What if he was just getting some range between himself and the people pursuing so he can get a better shot without getting apprehended himself ? I'm not saying this was Kyle's intention, but this is my argument about perception. How did the people in the vicinity know what he was thinking?

Pursuing him was still a self defense option. In fact I would say in the heat of the moment, actively pursuing and trying to disarm the rifle carrier could be perceived as the safest option. This wasn't a knife or a baseball bat. It was a rifle.
 
I'm not conflating anything.

Have you all forgotten that he was holding an AR-15 style rifle??

If someone walks away from you a bit with a rifle, would you just automatically assume you are safe?

Someone walking away from you with a rifle is meaningless. What if he was just getting some range between himself and the people pursuing so he can get a better shot without getting apprehended himself ? I'm not saying this was Kyle's intention, but this is my argument about perception. How did the people in the vicinity know what he was thinking?

Pursuing him was still a self defense option.
What? No, none of what you have typed is remotely anything close to acting in self defense. You are just typing complete nonsense now to justify your clear bias.
 
His life wouldn't have been threatened if he wasn't there, perhaps he should have let the police do their jobs instead of wasting their time instead.

He's perfectly entitled to be there, and protect the properties armed. That is American law.

Oh so as long as you "feel" you were under threat, you can just shoot unarmed people then?

That's a pretty awesome get out clause for any murderer.

It's obvious you see this case through a partisan lens. Not a good look.

To answer you're question, yes. It is the same in the UK too, only harder to prove. But we've had a few cases were home owners have shot and killed intruders and got let off.
 
Pursuing him was still a self defense option. In fact I would say in the heat of the moment, actively pursuing and trying to disarm the rifle carrier could be perceived as the safest option. This wasn't a knife or a baseball bat. It was a rifle.


Again. The guy was chasing Kyle for no reason.
With his gun drawn. He admitted it in court.

Chasing someone is not self defence.
That's called attacking.
 
What? No, none of what you have typed is remotely anything close to acting in self defense. You are just typing complete nonsense now to justify your clear bias.

Isn't it? Have you been faced with someone shooting people dead with a rifle right next to you?

I have no bias in this. I couldn't really give a monkey's what happens to Kyle. I think most of those involved were as bad as each other.

The hilarious and transparent double standards when it comes to self defense and vigilatism exhibited by many in this thread has just amused me.
 
Isn't it? Have you been faced with someone shooting people dead with a rifle right next to you?
No, because if you chase someone with the intent to harm them you aren't acting in self defense, it's not rocket science.

I'd also add that I'd run in the opposite direction because I'm not a larping idiot that's gotten away with causing all sorts of property destruction for 48 hours and think I'm untouchable.

The hilarious and transparent double standards when it comes to self defense and vigilatism exhibited by many in this thread has just amused me.

Well if you think someone protecting property and putting out fires is deserving of being fair game to a bunch of people trying to cause bodily harm then I guess there's no hope for you.
 
Last edited:
Oh no! Not his gun drawn. Good job Kyle wasn't walking around all night with a rifle then.



If you would have read the thread.
The guy did NOT HAVE a conceal weapon licence. That's breaking the law.
He had it tucked down the back of his trousers.
All show at the trial in video.

He pointed his gun at Kyle, that is an attacking stance and looks like attempted murder.
Which his friend said that he wanted to kill Kyle.
 
If someone walks away from you a bit with a rifle, would you just automatically assume you are safe?

Not completely but you're also not in imminent danger - you seem to forget that he wasn't walking away he was running away towards the police.

If someone is running away from you with a rifle do you think you'd be safer - running the other way? Staying put? Or chasing them down and trying to attack them or tackle them?

Note he wasn't shooting at anyone nor giving any indication that he intended too.

Someone walking away from you with a rifle is meaningless. What if he was just getting some range between himself and the people pursuing so he can get a better shot without getting apprehended himself ? I'm not saying this was Kyle's intention, but this is my argument about perception. How did the people in the vicinity know what he was thinking?

It's getting a bit silly now tbh.. with your what-ifs but more to the point what is the relevance of this argument about perception?

Pursuing him was still a self defense option. In fact I would say in the heat of the moment, actively pursuing and trying to disarm the rifle carrier could be perceived as the safest option.

That's a huge reach... comical even.

The trained medic who decided to not bother administering medical help to the first attacker, who could have simply stayed there but instead tried to chase Kyle down was acting in self-defence... by putting himself in more danger?

The hilarious and transparent double standards when it comes to self defense and vigilatism exhibited by many in this thread has just amused me.

The problem is you've avoided highlighting any, your argument here is reliant on vague claims and assumed equivalencies then when pressed for specifics you simply avoid/deflect.
 
Last edited:
*Standard guff deleted*

The problem is you've avoided highlighting any, your argument here is reliant on vague claims and assumed equivalencies then when pressed for specifics you simply avoid/deflect.

Well if that is your take, yours and everyone else in this threads entire viewpoint on this is based on vague claims and a whole host of assumptions as well..

As we were not privy to what was happening in these people's minds at the time, and we dont have full footage of everything that went on, you are **** in the wind as much as anyone else in regard to what actually happened and who was acting in self defense and who wasn't.

As I'm guessing that you've never been in a situation anywhere near close to this, your assumption on what you would do to protect yourself from someone you perceive to be shooting people dead near you has no more merit than mine. You are just too close minded to entertain any other possibility than the one your narrow minded and likely sheltered (in regard to this sort of experience) mind can conceive.
 
Well if that is your take, yours and everyone else in this threads entire viewpoint on this is based on vague claims and a whole host of assumptions as well..

If you think something I've said is vague then feel free to ask for clarification - unlike you, I'll be happy to provide it.

As we were not privy to what was happening in these people's minds at the time, and we dont have full footage of everything that went on, you are **** in the wind as much as anyone else in regard to what actually happened and who was acting in self defense and who wasn't.

I'm not so sure about that, I suspect you've not read/watched much about the case given some of your earlier claims. You didn't appear to understand what one of the charges related to even given your vague argument relating to why it should still apply.

[throwing in more ad hominems to deflect from addressing anything]

If you can't address the criticisms then that's on you, yet again you deflect from the topic at hand.
 
If you think something I've said is vague then feel free to ask for clarification - unlike you, I'll be happy to provide it.

I'm not so sure about that, I suspect you've not read/watched much about the case given some of your earlier claims. You didn't appear to understand what one of the charges related to even given your vague argument relating to why it should still apply.

If you can't address the criticisms then that's on you, yet again you deflect from the topic at hand.

There is nothing to address. I have addressed it all already quite clearly. If you dont understand it, that's on you.
 
And there we have it, another cop-out by Jono in favour of posturing and keeping things vague.

Nothing i have said has been vague. Ive made my opinion explicitly clear: Many of you (including yourself) have blindingly obvious double standards when it comes to self defense and vigilantism in this thread. I would suggest that you try and imagine what it might have been like for those who were not Kyle, and without your obvious political bias clouding your judgement.
 
Nothing i have said has been vague. Ive made my opinion explicitly clear: Many of you (including yourself) have blindingly obvious double standards when it comes to self defense and vigilantism in this thread. I would suggest that you try and imagine what it might have been like for those who were not Kyle.

OK. Where? You say you’re not being vague but I’m still not sure what you’re referring to. Can you give a clear/specific example of the “blindingly obvious” double standard you perceive I have? Which posts or comments are you referring to?
 
Oh no! Not his gun drawn. Good job Kyle wasn't walking around all night with a rifle then.

Difference between walking around with a rifle in a non-threatening posture and pointing a gun directly at someone.

I don't really know much about the situation with the guy who survived being shot and it needs more information really than I've seen but it is perfectly possible for both sides to have a self-defence angle and one or other having a justifiable self-defence defence doesn't remove that from the other.

Self-defence can take many forms depending on situation and in cases like this can only really be decided as to what was most likely the case by judge/jury with all the facts - with chasing someone down though you'd have to be able to show you had reason to imminently fear for the lives of yourself or those close to you if you didn't.
 
I don't really know much about the situation with the guy who survived being shot and it needs more information really than I've seen but it is perfectly possible for both sides to have a self-defence angle and one or other having a justifiable self-defence defence doesn't remove that from the other.

I partially agree with this. However if that were the case, then we do get in to the fact that everyone was being **** stirrers and reckless and the whole thing could have been avoided. Unfortunately, the person who was involved in the start of it all is now dead so we dont get to hear his side of the story.

with chasing someone down though you'd have to be able to show you had reason to imminently fear for the lives of yourself or those close to you if you didn't.

Which is entirely reasonable if Kyle was perceived to have been going around shooting people dead with his rifle.

I always thought those that backed gun rights etc backed up the "good guy with a gun" mantra? Apparently everyone with a gun should have just run away on this occasion.
 
OK. Where? You say you’re not being vague but I’m still not sure what you’re referring to. Can you give a clear/specific example of the “blindingly obvious” double standard you perceive I have? Which posts or comments are you referring to?
You won't get an answer
 
Can you give a clear/specific example of the “blindingly obvious” double standard you perceive I have? Which posts or comments are you referring to?

Ive already done so countless times in this thread. Go back and read it instead of jumping in part way and asking to be spoon fed.
 
I would suggest that you try and imagine what it might have been like for those who were not Kyle

Won't someone think it the domestic abusers, general violent criminals, racists and child sexual offenders that chased and attacked Kyle!

You might want to go back to SC where you will encounter less opposition to spouting absolute nonsense....
 
Back
Top Bottom