Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

The reason the AR15 is so popular is that it's a general purpose rifle cheap, light and the looks, cheap ammo. Lots of people do hunt with it, target shooting etc and home defense. It's not particular good at any of those things, (or is the cartridge) but it can be used for them all. You wouldn't use a pistol for hunting and you would use a long rifle for home defence. You wouldnt use a target rifle for anything other than target shooting. It's replaced most traditional rifles. It's a modern day Winchester. I say modern but it's a 60yr old design.

The traditional bolt action rifle isn't nearly as popular any more. One statistic I saw was there are 3 times as many semi automatic rifles sold as bolt action rifles.

None of this is really matters. People here will have a problem with any kinda of a gun at a protest or riot. It's not something thats part of our society. So debating which gun is disingenuous. You really mean any gun. Your mindset is that anyone who rocks up with any gun is there to kill someone. Likewise if someone had a bat. Anything really.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
This is hilarious, Kyle was (according to him) threatened with a gun, he's then pursued by both the person with the gun and another person (who ran), he then hears a gunshot... but he has no idea who actually made the bang?

LOL is this actually how you think? You've just been threatened with a gun, you run away from the person and then you have "no idea" where a gunshot behind you came from???

I mean sure, he doesn't know for sure but I think he can have a pretty good guess that the guy who just threatened him with a gun might well have just fired it!

Total cope, it's almost as bad as your previous downplaying attempt where you declared (falsely) that the gunshot had nothing to do with Kyle and took place in a different location.
Click to expand...

Once again you have totally misunderstood what i said and entirely misrepresented everything i have said

A. There is no proof the gunshot seconds prior to Kyle killing Rosenbaum was anything to with Kyle. I believe Ziminski has just said it was a "warning shot" but with no further documentation on who the warning was for. By this point Kyle and Rosenbaum had travelled well into the car park and where a "bang" came from is irrelevant to Kyle turning and shooting a different, unarmed man.

B. Kyle didn't know where or who fired the gun. He may well have assumed it was Zaminski and aimed at him, and i imagine he did, but so what?


dowie said:
What a surprise. It's like you've got the attention span of a goldfish (this perhaps explains the basic factual errors made too, you simply haven't paid attention to the case), you see anything longer than a sentence and you call it gish gallop, word salad etc.. and when you're asked to back up an assertion with some reasoning/some sort of argument you back away from doing so - keeping things vague, deflect, sticking to assertions seems to be the go-to defence here to try to avoid criticism - you know full well I've asked about the assertion you made a few times now, you've either selectively ignored it or thrown in an excuse to avoid answering - the reason seems to be obvious, as with your previous deflections you can't actually back up the point.
Click to expand...

Just lol at this nonsense.

Lets look at how this started -

I said, as part of a larger point/post

"Were any of them likely to have killed/seriously injured Kyle? No. We know some had firearms, yet not one of them fired at Kyle, in spite of having plenty of opportunities to do so."

To which you responded:
dowie said:
That’s just false, one of them did both threaten Kyle and either fire at him or into the air behind him. (This he’s not going to want to stick around after the first shooting) The other had a firearm and was shot by Kyle as soon as he aimed it st him. In that latter case he was very likely to have killed him had he then discharged it thus Kyle opened fire.
Click to expand...

Explain what was false please. In spite of having plenty of opportunities, no one fired their weapon at Kyle.

You have then gone on one of your usual boring and aimless tirades with no point to it at all other than to be boring and argumentative.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
....
"Were any of them likely to have killed/seriously injured Kyle? No. We know some had firearms, yet not one of them fired at Kyle, in spite of having plenty of opportunities to do so."...
Click to expand...

The guy who pointed his gun directly at him at short range was very likely to have shot him. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

Similarly arguing that those people who didn't attack him, didn't attack him is daft. He didn't attack anyone who didn't attack him either.
 
OspreyO said:
The guy who pointed his gun directly at him at short range was very likely to have shot him. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

No he wasn't. The guy testified that he thought Kyle was an active shooter and had PLENTY of opportunity to shoot him on approach if that was his intention. He didn't even fire when Kyle pointed his gun at him first and didn't fire after then when Kyle lowered his weapon slightly. You seem to be forgetting that it is only Kyle who fired his weapon at people (on multiple occasions), and its pretty lucky (for the two that survived) that all 4 people he fired at are not dead.

Do you honestly think that he was just going to put his gun to Kyle's head and just execute him at that point?

It is far more likely from the footage and accounts that we have, that it was not his intention to kill Kyle. In fact i don't believe it was anyone's intention to actually kill Kyle that night.
 
Jono8 said:
I think you have missed my point. My point was that people chase, lunge at, kick, punch people, get into fights and altercations etc all the time (and likely this happens in most bars/clubs at some point on a Friday/Saturday nigh). However, it does not result in them being shot dead.
Click to expand...

I mean most bars/clubs in America will technically be "gun free" anyway.

Colonel_Klinck said:
The homicide rates in the UK and the US aren't remotely the same. US 5 per 100k, England& Wales 1.2 per 100k. Do you think allowing members of the public to carry guns everywhere would increase or decrease that number? Would we have more or less mass killing events?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

As for a gun serving as self protection, that only works if you are prepared to actually use the gun and trained to use it without freezing or panicking and having the weapon taken off you or just missing entirely. I could get behind people being licenced to carry mace or even handheld taser that you have to touch someone with for self defence but guns everywhere, no thanks. Even then though they would be used and abused.
Click to expand...

Yea I don't know why pepper spray isn't legal here, (well I do, nanny state) its a great tool for ending a fight before it starts especailly if say someone was attacking you with a knife, giving you plenty of opportunity to run away.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
No he wasn't. The guy testified that he thought Kyle was an active shooter and had PLENTY of opportunity to shoot him on approach if that was his intention. He didn't even fire when Kyle pointed his gun at him first and didn't fire after then when Kyle lowered his weapon slightly. You seem to be forgetting that it is only Kyle who fired his weapon at people (on multiple occasions), and its pretty lucky (for the two that survived) that all 4 people he fired at are not dead.

Do you honestly think that he was just going to put his gun to Kyle's head and just execute him at that point?

It is far more likely from the footage and accounts that we have, that it was not his intention to kill Kyle. In fact i don't believe it was anyone's intention to actually kill Kyle that night.
Click to expand...

This is not about my opinion.

As you've described HE approached Rittenhouse not the other way around, then moved his gun into a firing position. Only then was he shot. He admitted this himself in court.
Unfortunately for your imaginative theory, one person was retreating, and one person was advancing (approaching). Which was caught on video and conceded in court under oath.
Also this immediately after two other attacks on Rittenhouse. This is critical when it comes to self defence pleas and how the law in this state is phrased.
 
dLockers said:
Why are we so hell bent on defending a murderer who crossed state lines with an illegal AR15 and killed and wounded people?
Click to expand...

Its interesting reflection on US society and right to bear arms. Its also interesting how the media, and social media like this forum, ignore the facts and promote false information. Which at worse deliberate, which makes you wonder why, or at best because of they are ignorant of the facts, and can't be bother to research it. It will be interesting if there a change in the law as a result. It was ready changed due the Capital Riots, this case might have a similar effect.
 
OspreyO said:
Its interesting reflection on US society and right to bear arms. Its also interesting how the media, and social media like this forum, ignore the facts and promote false information. Which at worse deliberate, which makes you wonder why, or at best because of their are ignorant of the facts, and can't be bother to research it. It will be interesting if there a change in the law as a result. It was ready changed due the Capital Riots, this case might have a similar effect.
Click to expand...
And anyone that thinks its a bit odd to be defending this moron who travelled across state lines with an AR15 to attend a protest he had no business being at, is considered a dirty lefty?

We should really stop importing US culture. It is total garbage.
 
Roar87 said:
You're basically upset that he had the means to defend himself whilst being attacked because violent situations happen where people don't have that ability and he may have only been badly beaten? I mean this is essentially victim blaming lol. "OMG why didn't he take his beating instead of using deadly force!!!". The people attacking Kyle made the decision and 2 of them are dead, if you're dumb enough to physically attack someone with a gun who is actively retreating and trying to avoid conflict then that's on you, you won the Darwin award.

Yes hard to imagine why he felt he had to shoot someone, violence happens every day bro. Imagine actually continuing to defend this **** it's embarrassing and you make yourself look so stupid

csthndm6ndj51.jpg
Click to expand...
BTW I'm pretty sure this photo was taken after he had already killed one person, so he was the only active shooter at that point.
 
Dis86 said:
Because context is everything.

Oh BTW it wasn't an AR15.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I provided the relevant context lol. Dude travelled across state lines with an AR-15 'like' weapon, killed some people, wounded others - what other context am I missing? The fact he was so trigger happy he started making pop shots when he heard someone elses (who we don't know who) gun fire?
 
dLockers said:
Pretty sure I provided the relevant context lol. Dude travelled across state lines with an AR-15 'like' weapon, killed some people, wounded others - what other context am I missing? The fact he was so trigger happy he started making pop shots when he heard someone elses (who we don't know who) gun fire?
Click to expand...

You're missing that he never threatened anyone until he was chased and assaulted. Key points.
 
Dis86 said:
You're missing that he never threatened anyone until he was chased and assaulted. Key points.
Click to expand...
Ah okay so when you said "I missed the context" you meant the minutiae of the night, and you are ignoring the context of the chap driving across state lines with an illegal AR-15 'like' gun.

Dude went armed to the teeth to "intimidate" and/or kill. Some called his bluff and he small ****ed and killed. The other folk were trying to track down a murderer and were not as trigger happy.
 
dLockers said:
Dude travelled across state lines with an AR-15 'like' weapon
Click to expand...
That's a lie.

dLockers said:
The fact he was so trigger happy he started making pop shots when he heard someone elses (who we don't know who) gun fire?
Click to expand...
He shot a guy who said he would kill him, who was chasing Rittenhouse, and grabbed Rittenhouse's rifle.

You don't seem to be aware of this case at all.

C Kent said:
Oh what case is that you are posting about? Because it's not this one.

Maybe you should start a new thread.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.
 
dLockers said:
Ah okay so when you said "I missed the context" you meant the minutiae of the night, and you are ignoring the context of the chap driving across state lines with an illegal AR-15 'like' gun.

Dude went armed to the teeth to "intimidate" and/or kill. Some called his bluff and he small ****ed and killed. The other folk were trying to track down a murderer and were not as trigger happy.
Click to expand...

Yeah...no. context is key. It's literally what this thread is about.
He didn't go armed to the teeth to intimidate either. He went armed with, as pointed out, a weapon that is designed to be less lethal. He was providing protection to local businesses and medical assistance. He has been shown to have helped an injured protestor. Could you explain to me what's intimidating about providing first aid to an injured protestor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom