Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

visibleman said:
That reads a bit too much like the ol' saying of "I've got a gun because they (a few of them) have guns".
Click to expand...
Appreciated but I'm just being mindful of the fact this is America and not the UK we are discussing.

Obviously it is less likely someone will get killed if nobody has weapons but I'm not sure how that would have gone down had the "militia" been completely unarmed. I don't think harsh language would have cut it. :D

In all honesty it's a joke that people should even feel the need to defend their property and livelihoods from a supposedly peaceful protest. The moment agitators are seen tooled up or with firearms, it should be shut down IMO.
 
Democrat run cities are falling apart with crime and riots. Trump has offered to send in help to keep order if requested but the Democrats won't ask because then they can't scream about him being a dictator.

I'd like to see how the Democrats will campaign against the 2nd amendment after this, they've always argued that people don't need guns because the police will protect them but not only has it now been shown that that's not the case but they're campaigning to abolish the police too? if Trump is working for Russia then Putin must love America because it's the Democrat's doing everything they can to try and tear it down.
 
What a completely messed up situation.
What on earth is happening in that country?!

From my fleeting review of the footage, he seemed to be someone with good intentions that was defending himself.

But it seems without the realms of manslaughter at the very least. Outside of whatever laws may apply, IMO he’s somewhat morally voided his ‘self-defence’ defence by putting himself into that position, which is of greater significance to me than having a lethal weapon unlawfully by default of his age (which seems more of a ‘technically unlawful’ thing, to my mind).
 
Nitefly said:
But it seems without the realms of manslaughter at the very least. Outside of whatever laws may apply, IMO he’s somewhat morally voided his ‘self-defence’ defence by putting himself into that position, which is of greater significance to me than having a lethal weapon unlawfully by default of his age (which seems more of a ‘technically unlawful’ thing, to my mind).
Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about the people he killed and injured too though, in fact morally they were in an even more dubious position - he was at least there apparently at the invitation of the owner of the properties attacked that night and on previous nights, they were there to cause arson and destruction and they attacked him, one of them brought a firearm along too.

He's got at least as much right as any protestor or rioter/arsonists (as at that hour lets be realistic that's mostly the people left from the protests) to be there.

I think by UK standards of course it is manslaughter, by US standards with gun culture being normalised and something you can carry openly then... not sure - it's political now, they might get a lesser charge to stick (just a lottery with the jury perhaps), I suspect that without all the publicity/national attention on it they might not have even made those charges or would be looking to withdraw them and just go with the weapons misdemeanor.
 
dowie said:
You could say the same thing about the people he killed and injured too though, in fact morally they were in an even more dubious position - he was at least there apparently at the invitation of the owner of the properties attacked that night and on previous nights, they were there to cause arson and destruction and they attacked him, one of them brought a firearm along too.

He's got at least as much right as any protestor or rioter/arsonists (as at that hour lets be realistic that's mostly the people left from the protests) to be there.

I think by UK standards of course it is manslaughter, by US standards with gun culture being normalised and something you can carry openly then... not sure - it's political now, they might get a lesser charge to stick (just a lottery with the jury perhaps), I suspect that without all the publicity/national attention on it they might not have even made those charges or would be looking to withdraw them and just go with the weapons misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a bit more of a stretch re: those that were shot. There seems to have been a bit of a hoohah with the first person but for the next two, they just seemed to be trying to disarm him. I don’t think we can infer that they were necessarily out to cause arson by being there (unarmed).

Being there with a rifle like that though, it’s just asking for trouble.

Had rifle man not been there, perhaps there would have been substantially more damage to property... but maybe less lives ruined....?
 
VincentHanna said:
He wasn't even from the same state.
Click to expand...

This is semantics, replace city/state/county with whatever word you like. Point is this is someone getting attacked by domestic terrorists in their own country.

Nitefly said:
What a completely messed up situation.
What on earth is happening in that country?!

From my fleeting review of the footage, he seemed to be someone with good intentions that was defending himself.

But it seems without the realms of manslaughter at the very least. Outside of whatever laws may apply, IMO he’s somewhat morally voided his ‘self-defence’ defence by putting himself into that position, which is of greater significance to me than having a lethal weapon unlawfully by default of his age (which seems more of a ‘technically unlawful’ thing, to my mind).
Click to expand...

I have to agree with @dowie here, you can't put the onus on the defender here. Show me the malice aforethought. The attackers should not have been there rioting in the first place and put themselves in jeopardy of a violent confrontation at the hands of the police or a private citizen.

Citizens should be lauded for having the courage to stand up for justice and against criminal destruction. To suggest he had a lack of morality is, to me, perverse.
 
Last edited:
Well what do you Democrat supporters from the SC thread think now after opposing trump?

I must admit though I've got a sizable revolutionary streak in me myself but overall it's what people like George Soros and the radical left have been planning for decades, to destroy America.

Yet we've been saying this for years and you shrug it off as we are talking madness but it's a classic Bolchavik type attempt at a socialist revolution.
 
Nitefly said:
I think that’s a bit more of a stretch re: those that were shot. There seems to have been a bit of a hoohah with the first person but for the next two, they just seemed to be trying to disarm him. I don’t think we can infer that they were necessarily out to cause arson by being there (unarmed).

Being there with a rifle like that though, it’s just asking for trouble.

Had rifle man not been there, perhaps there would have been substantially more damage to property... but maybe less lives ruined....?
Click to expand...

OK but using the exact same logic - third guy shot was holding a handgun - being there with a handgun like that though, just asking for trouble....

Had handgun man not been there then he'd not have felt so emboldened and his arm would still be intact (incidentally handgun man is a member of two far left groups and its not much of a stretch to suppose he was not just there after curfew for peaceful protesting!)

The other two were seen in the video of the confrontation after he used a fire extinguisher to put out the bin fire - that is what caused the initial chasing of him and attempts to attack him...
so you can use the same sort of argument, getting involved with arson is asking for trouble, as is kicking off at armed men on a petrol station forecourt once your arson attempt is interrupted - both the convicted paedophile (with multiple instances of violence in prison) who is seen trying to pick a fight with any of the militia guys + the skateboard guy who is also in that confrontation of the forecourt before anyone is shot (and who also is a convicted felon with a history of violence) were "just asking for trouble" with their actions too.

Given they were there for violence and destruction and the kid was there to try and stop it.. which is backed up by both his statements and actions - he administered first aid, he put out a fire.... he was chased and attacked first by everyone he shot at... as much as I think armed militia and some LARPing kid are ridiculous on the streets of a demoncratic country, given the US gun culture I'd say the kid had more right to be there than them and had the moral high ground.

Ultimately had the people in charge at a state and local level not left a power vacuum and allowed this property destruction to occur over 2 nights beforehand then this could have been prevented. I won't go into the incident that sparked this particular bit of rioting in Kenosha too as that is for another thread if anyone chooses to create one but judging by how other similar threads have turned out with people unable to exchange views on matters like that it's not worth it IMO. This thread is feasible as there is less cultural baggage and so the incident itself can be discussed.
 
VincentHanna said:
He wasn't even from the same state.
Click to expand...

The skateboard guy was also not from the same state, he was from the same state as Kyle.

The guy with the handgun was from the same state but a different metropoltian area and lives further away than Kyle.

Only the 5'3" paedophile who initially attacked him is actually from the town.

You'll probably find that a lot of the rioters weren't from that town.

Below is a map - the highlighted bit is the county Kyle lives in, the bit just above it is Kenosha, the town in question.... it's in a different state but is actually counted as part of the Chicago metropolitan area just as Kyle's hometown is so at some points you can cross the street and you're in Kyle's county and vice versa.

So what you've essentially highlighted there is pretty irrelevant - it is like saying someone in a riot in Manchester "wasn't even from the same city" because they live in Salford... even though it is in the same metropolitan area. It is bordering on dishonest as can be taken to imply they have no connection and they've perhaps come from some distance away.

In reality he lives in the same general metropolitan area and (more relevant) he works in the town as a lifeguard, he hung around after work clearing graffitti and he obtained a rifle and answered a call for volunteers apparently from the local business owner who runs the car lot + mechanic shops. He brought along his med pack (presumably from his job as a lifeguard). It's not that much of a stretch that someone working as a lifeguard and who has volunteered as some sort of police cadet might do that... (yes though it is nuts that he's armed like that but it is 'merica)

JzcgS6N.png
 
VincentHanna said:
He wasn't even from the same state.
Click to expand...

What's that sound?.... It's the sound of another dishonest narrative falling to pieces .....

Kyle Rittenhouse Was Working as a Lifeguard in Kenosha the Day of the Shooting, Went to Clean Vandalism at School After Work

In a statement by Rittenhouse’s legal team at Pierce Bainbridge, provided to the Gateway Pundit, they explained that “after Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha, he wanted to help clean up some of the damage, so he and a friend went to the local public high school to remove graffiti by rioters.”

Additionally, the weapon Rittenhouse was using to protect himself and others never crossed state lines.
Click to expand...
 
mjt said:
Lolz. You’re using Gateway Pundit as your source of information calling out someone else’s “false narrative”. Impressive.

On a completely unrelated note, this murderer is being represented by a very reputable law firm.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-usa-lawyer-idUSKBN25N39H

Small world, huh?
Click to expand...

So which bits not true then?

I'm sure it will all come out in time from more official channels but the quote deals in claims re facts not feelings or opionons.

Are you going to say the claims made in the link are wrong? Or are you just another vacuous poster?
 
Caracus2k said:
So which bits not true then?

I'm sure it will all come out in time from more official channels but the quote deals in claims re facts not feelings or opionons.

Are you going to say the claims made in the link are wrong? Or are you just another vacuous poster?
Click to expand...
So you’re calling me stupid for pointing out your use of a web site known for posting misinformation and spreading conspiracy theories to claim someone else is pushing a false narrative. What does that make you?

Why should we take the defendants lawyers’ statement as truth, especially when the lawyers themselves have a questionable record and clear ties to former members of the Trump administration?
 
mjt said:
So you’re calling me stupid for pointing out your use of a web site known for posting misinformation and spreading conspiracy theories to claim someone else is pushing a false narrative. What does that make you?
Click to expand...

So vacuous as i expected.

Put up or shut up.

Are the limited, rather simple, and apparently easy to rebut (if not true) claims made by a law firm (the website was just repeating the statement they made) likely false or not?

We already have photos of the 17- year old apparently cleaning up graffiti. Is this or the other factual claims false?

Or are you just determined to run cover for paedophilles, domestic abusers and people who use racial slurs because it suit your partisan attempts at deflection from inconvenient facts ?

How does it help Kyle's pending court case and the reputation of the law firm concerned to make about such simple and likely easily rebutted claims at this stage?
 
Last edited:
mjt said:
So you’re calling me stupid for pointing out your use of a web site known for posting misinformation and spreading conspiracy theories to claim someone else is pushing a false narrative. What does that make you?

Why should we take the defendants lawyers’ statement as truth, especially when the lawyers themselves have a questionable record and clear ties to former members of the Trump administration?
Click to expand...

No but you apply some critical thinking... if the lawyers are going to claim he works at a local pool as a lifeguard and was working there that day then that's a fact that is easily checked and verified by the investigators/prosecutors... ergo if you've got something like that from the horses mouth so to speak then it's likely true.

If it wasn't true then you'd soon find someone from the local pool being interviewed by journalists saying "WTF we've never even seen this kid before"..

It's worth looking at a variety of sources critically for this sort of story as even mainstream sources can spin a narrative or leave out important details - if you'd watched say the Stephen Colbert show for example you might be left with the impression that this kid turned up and just randomly shot at a crowd of protestors etc.. and if you left it at that and ignored all other stories about it then you'd perhaps be dismayed in coming months if/when the trial ends up with him pleading to a lesser charge or charges get dropped or he gets found not guilty etc..
.
 
dowie said:
Problem with criticising facebook over this is that these two deaths are two out of 30+, if they believe that any calls condoning violence or encouraging gatherings of people that might lead to violence should be banned then FB would need to take down a whole load of BLM, Antifa groups and ban various supporters who are condoning violence, looting etc.. there were various CHAS/CHOP accounts happily posting away and they had heavily armed "security" too... resulted in several shooting events inc deaths. I don't recall her criticising the lack of action behind the Seattle based antifa, BLM etc.. accounts.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about Kenosha? I genuinely haven't seen details other deaths. Can you link some reports?
dowie said:
Posted these in SC but this is the result of some of the damage done, includes the car dealership:
Click to expand...
That's pretty crazy stuff. Can imagine why locals would be angry and upset.
mmj_uk said:
Democrat run cities are falling apart with crime and riots. Trump has offered to send in help to keep order if requested but the Democrats won't ask because then they can't scream about him being a dictator.
Click to expand...
Why is it police in "Democrat cities" are so much more prone to riot-starting violence?

Also, on the political spectrum, the Democrat party stands about where the Conservative Party stands in the UK. Trump attracted a lot of the Bernice Sanders votes, and is the extremist, division-stoking candidate. What's your basis for absolving Trump of all responsibility?
 
dowie said:
Posted these in SC but this is the result of some of the damage done, includes the car dealership:
Click to expand...

This is all fine, property is just another aspect of whiteness, they deserve to lose everything.

Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness and of the police. It gets to the very root of the way those three things are interconnected. And also it provides people with an imaginative sense of freedom and pleasure and helps them imagine a world that could be.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom