Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

thegreysquirrel said:
The question is, do you think he'd have shot anyone if everyone just ignored him?
Click to expand...
I think this is a really dangerous ideology though.

Putting folk who are armed on a pedestal because you need to assume they will kill you if they think they are threatened is nuts. That is a kill first ask questions later society in the name of 'self defence'. How could anyone distinguish him from a murderer/active shooter and someone killing in self defence in such an environment?
 
Dis86 said:
The police were failing to respond due to widespread rioting. Seriously, do you actually have a clue?
Click to expand...
So 2nd in defence to the best funded/armed police force in the world is kids LARPing? Right :cry:

I hear you dis, I really do - I just don't get why this kid is being evangelised so much by the 'usual crowd'. If this was the UK and he went stabbing folk with a 'legal knife' I hope we'd all agree that him being there armed up to 'protect property' was incredibly daft, and him being backup to the police even dafter.
 
dLockers said:
Or ya know, call the police/get yourself out of danger. Bits of tin are not more valuable than life, especially in a services economy.
Click to expand...
The police were doing nothing, and like I said earlier in the thread...
Skunkworks said:
In a law and order society we have a bargain that the people stay peaceful and the police and judiciary maintain law and order. When the police abandon their end of the bargain sooner or later the people will abandon theirs too.
Click to expand...
 
Skunkworks said:
The police were doing nothing, and like I said earlier in the thread...
Click to expand...

But they aren't attacking people.


For law and order fires etc can be delt with later. People weren't at risk so retreat let people be ********* fix the stuff later no one dies.


Idiots with guns go in and people die, that can't be fixed later.

No money, no insurance, no builder can fix a corpse
 
thegreysquirrel said:
Stupid place - yes
Dressed as action man - not one I ever owned
Willing to kill - for the jury to decide

The question is, do you think he'd have shot anyone if everyone just ignored him?
Click to expand...
Illegally carrying a firearm having traveled to the scene to participate in armed unrest?

Surely that invalidates everything else?
If I take a sword to a football match to prevent the other teams fans being violent and stab a bunch of of opposing fans as they try to take my sword off me because they fear for thier lives am I defending myself?

Or should I have not been there?

Should I have not had an ilegal weapon?

*illegal as he was underage for the state to be armed
 
dLockers said:
Yeah precisely. If only he had considered the harm this could bring to him, his family, the family of the people he murdered. All because he decided to place himself in such a stupid place, dressed up as an action man, and clearly more than willing to kill.
Click to expand...

Actually it was because they ALL decided to be there, and at least for those who got shot because they also attacked someone. If Rittenhouse was stupid, they were more so. Because they don't have the excuse of being kids. Rittenhouse was moving away, if they had done the same none of this would have happened.
 
Tefal said:
Illegally carrying a firearm having traveled to the scene to participate in armed unrest?

Surely that invalidates everything else?
Click to expand...

the firearms charge has been thrown out if I understand. So this argument is irrelevant.

In the UK you are not allowed to preemptively arm yourself for the purpose of self defence. The US is different.
 
Tefal said:
Illegally carrying a firearm having traveled to the scene to participate in armed unrest?

Surely that invalidates everything else?
If I take a sword to a football match to prevent the other teams fans being violent and stab a bunch of of opposing fans as they try to take my sword off me because they fear for thier lives am I defending myself?

Or should I have not been there?

Should I have not had an ilegal weapon?

*illegal as he was underage for the state to be armed
Click to expand...

Well its was debatable it was illegal for Rittenshouse (before it was dismissed), but its valid for Grosskreutz.
 
dLockers said:
I think this is a really dangerous ideology though.

Putting folk who are armed on a pedestal because you need to assume they will kill you if they think they are threatened is nuts. That is a kill first ask questions later society in the name of 'self defence'. How could anyone distinguish him from a murderer/active shooter and someone killing in self defence in such an environment?
Click to expand...

He didn't "think he was threatened", he was very literally attacked and forced to defend himself
 
Tefal said:
After traveling 21 mile to place himself in danger?
Click to expand...

He works in Kenosha, his Dad lives in Kenosha, he has friends and family in Kenosha, 20 miles in a car is hardly the other side of the country, it's completely irrelevant. How far is allowed? Should we wait until the riots are on our doorsteps, are our places of work not sufficient enough to want to look after?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom