Questions About Kyle Rittenhouse

[Godhead]

Just now, Raptorsin7 said:

Who should protect property if the government refuses to intervene?

Certainly not right wing kids with assault riffles. 

 

They also did inervene, idk what you mean, they just gathered forces to push them back strategically.

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, Godhead said:

Certainly not right wing kids with assault riffles. 

 

They also did inervene, idk what you mean, they just gathered forces to push them back strategically.

If the police were actively moving to disrupt looting and the destruction of property then I would agree that vigilantism is not necessary.

I think the police were given orders not to break up the rioting and looting because politicians did not want to deal with the political storm it would cause. So they took a hands off approach and allowed the looters to burn through the area, like they allow a forest fire to burn itself out.

If there were looters and rioters active in Rittenhouse's area then he does have a right to protect community property against looters and rioters.

3 minutes ago, Godhead said:

They also did inervene, idk what you mean, they just gathered forces to push them back strategically.

Can you link this.

I am operating on the video and the psychology of the police and politicians

[Opo]

53 minutes ago, Godhead said:

Americans be like: 

"Wdym, it's completely normal if a 17 year old right wing militant walks into a protest, in a different city to protect property which isn't his own and no one asked him to protect, with an assault rifle and then uses 'self defense' by shooting at people. It's not against the law?!"  

He was asked to protect that property by the owner. 

Was he supposed to let the LeFt WiNg rioters kill him? 

And this is on the level of" the leftists believe that a rapist or whatever that guy is and a mental patient should be free to kill a child without that child resisting."

Edited November 23, 2021 by Opo

[Opo]

1 hour ago, lmfao said:

@Raptorsin7 From what I know he's innocent, the rest is cope

Also here's funny meme 
IMG_1499.mp4
lmao

Tru

Here's another one. 

[Thought Art]

My opinion is... It's complicated... But I think I lean more towards:

1. No one asked him to defend this property and you can't kill someone for destroying property. They would need to be charged with a crime just like anyone else... You don't deserve to be killed for rioting or protesting.

2. The people who 'attacked' him were clearly trying to disarm someone they saw as a threat to the safety of other unarmed people. Were they trying to disarm arm him because he just killed someone? Idk.

However, I can put myself in the shooters perspective. He was trying to do right by his own perspective and does have a right to defend himself. But, by bringing a gun to a protest... He was asking in some way for this to happen. 

Someone threw a plastic bag at him and he shot him. (however some rando did fire a hand gun into the air just before the 17 murdered an unarmed person, so maybe he was startled...) Two people then tried to disarm him. So no, theres no fucking reason for lethal force. By bringing the gun HE made it a lethal situation. 

Situations like these riots and protests are extremely complicated. Which sadly includes uneducated gun toters thinking they have a right to bring armed force when they don't really... I mean they have a right to carry weapons but killing people who are protesting seems a bit much. I understand Rittenhouse didn't just shoot random protestors, but his actions still resulted in these deaths. I also can't separate the even from the larger system issues taking place. So I am not surprised these killings happened.

The US is a complicated social arena in some ways. Also, there are a lot of militias forming all over the states. I am sure this isn't the last time something like this happens.

The US has one of the most advanced militaries in the world. Why would we need these fools thinking they someone know how to defend the situation? 

3 Good people died that night. I don't think Rittenhouse should walk away scot free. Should he spend 20 years in prison? I don't think so. But, he should have some kind of sentencing. Maybe 1-5 years of something.

Are these people who bring guns to defend property the same people who would assault the white house? I don't know.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Thought Art

[Opo]

46 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

However, I can put myself in the shooters perspective. He was trying to do right by his own perspective and does have a right to defend himself. But, by bringing a gun to a protest... He was asking in some way for this to happen. 

Someone through a plastic bag at him and he shot him. (however some rando did fire a hand gun into the air just before the 17 murdered an unarmed person, so maybe he was startled...) Two people then tried to disarm him. So no, theres no fucking reason for lethal force. By bringing the gun HE made it a lethal situation. 

I agree that he was somewhat responsible for raising the tension but you have to be retarded to agree on this and then dismiss the responsibility of the attacker who pointed the gun at Kyle. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Opo

[Thought Art]

@Opo Hmmm, Let's try to keep the forum friendly. Let's remember everyone coming to the thread has different sources and areas of understanding. No need to call anyone retarded.

On that note, I watched the video recordings of that night. I didn't see any guns pointed at Rittenhouse nor see that it any of the reporting. Share links.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Thought Art

[Opo]

10 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Opo No need to call anyone retarded.

There's no need but it's fun. 

10 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

On that note, I watched the video recordings of that night. I didn't see any guns pointed at Rittenhouse nor see that it any of the reporting. Share links.

Get out of the left wing bubble. 

Here is him testifying. 

 

[Godhead]

1 hour ago, Opo said:

He was asked to protect that property by the owner. 

Nope.

1 hour ago, Opo said:

Was he supposed to let the LeFt WiNg rioters kill him?

If you act like an idiot, people will try to stop you. It's insane to me how some of you think it's normal behavior to show up to a protest with an AR and expect people to treat you normaly. No one would have jumped on him if he wouldn't be running around with an AR. Protestors obviously (and correctly) saw him as a threat

He put himself in a dumb situation, he should be held responsible for that.

Btw. he was caught on camera a day or something before mentioning how he want's to kill those protesters. 

 

[Raptorsin7]

19 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Hmmm, Let's try to keep the forum friendly. Let's remember everyone coming to the thread has different sources and areas of understanding. No need to call anyone retarded.

Yeah I agree

[Raptorsin7]

5 minutes ago, Godhead said:

If you act like an idiot, people will try to stop you. It's insane to me how some of you think it's normal behavior to show up to a protest with an AR and expect people to treat you normaly

Time stamp 14:04.

This is the guy who provoked Kyle Rittenhouse into shooting him, thereby causing the entire chain of events.

Does anyone doubt that this guy is seriously deranged and provoked Kyle into taking lethal action against him. 

Also, everyone who was out there protesting by that point had repeated warnings to vacate the area. The protests were long over, the only reason to still be out there is to engage in nefarious behavior. There is no political value to protesting at this point, these people were out there to cause problems.

7 minutes ago, Godhead said:

No one would have jumped on him if he wouldn't be running around with an AR. Protestors obviously (and correctly) saw him as a threat

And this circumstance would never happened if the protestors were not there breaking curfew, or if the original guy who provoked Kyle wasn't mentally insane.

7 minutes ago, Godhead said:

He put himself in a dumb situation, he should be held responsible for that.

The original victim did exactly this. And his choice cost him his life. This sparked the entire chain of events that forced kyle to act in self defense when he was swarmed by the mob.

 

8 minutes ago, Godhead said:

Btw. he was caught on camera a day or something before mentioning how he want's to kill those protesters. 

He was speaking about people looting stores. Looters are not protestors, they are vultures capitalizing on the chaos. 

This is SD blue responding to red. It can't be more simple than that.

 

[Opo]

2 hours ago, Godhead said:

Nope.

I read this article. 

https://www.insider.com/brothers-say-they-never-asked-rittenhouse-to-guard-car-source-2021-11

Kyle said that they asked and they said that they didn't.

Looks like it stopped there. 

This below didn't look good for them but in the end who knows. 

"Chirafisi also repeatedly asked Anmol whether he was fearful of being sued if he admitted that he requested armed protection on the property where Rittenhouse ultimately shot Joseph Rosenbaum. Anmol appeared not to understand the question." 

[Opo]

2 hours ago, Godhead said:

Btw. he was caught on camera a day or something before mentioning how he want's to kill those protesters. 

His attacker said the same thing. 

Oh wait I forgot he was left wing so it doesn't count. 

Never mind. 

[Fleetinglife]

Just want to drop this here of what I posted earlier in this subforum. Food for thought for people forming and holding onto their biases, prejudgements, opinions and stances on this situation:

''If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, stupidity is in essence not an intellectual defect but a moral one. There are human beings who are remarkably agile intellectually yet stupid, and yet others who are intellectualy dull but anything but stupid.

The impression one gains is that stupidity is not so much a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or rather, they allow this to happen to them. 

People who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals in groups. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. 

It becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power, be it of political or religious nature, infects a large part of humanity with stupidity. Almost as if this is a sociological-psychological law, where the power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.

The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, such as intellect, suddenly fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up on the autonomous position.

The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn, must not blind us from the fact that he is not independent. 

In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possesion of him.

He is under a spell, blinded, misused and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil - incapable of seeing that it is evil.

Only an act of liberation, not instruction can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until hen, we must abandon all atempts to convince the stupid person.''

- Dietrich Bonhoffer's Theory of Stupidity

Edited November 23, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Dryas]

Since this is the only active Rittenhouse thread I see right now

Something about this is very funny to me

[Lyubov]

Gun laws are just fucked in the USA. The very fact that a 17 year old kid can go around pretending to be a cop is crazy. I think there are tons of issues and factors that lead us here but the issue runs deeper than the sort of surface level problem the trial was about. 

[Mason Riggle]

12 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Not to me.

I don't know if he admits he's wrong, he thinks i'm a right wing troll, I'm not worth responding to etc

I think the question is not worth responding to, although I stated my view. 

The solution to rioting, is to fix the systemic issues that lead to rioting.  Rioters and Looters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and if law enforcement is unable or unwilling to do so, then we reform law enforcement and those responsible for their performance. 

I don't need to answer 'what do shop owners do to protect their property from rioters and looters?', (for the same reason I can categorically say, 'kicking puppies in the face is not a good way to potty trian them' and I don't need to offer up a better way in order to emphatically say that.. )  but as has already been stated, the answer is not 'enlist an untrained 17 year old with an AR'. 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Tyler Durden]

I don't understand such a strong emotional response to this case on this forum. Wasn't that whole situation just God shooting itself? It was God's will that things happend that way. There is no place for moral outrage.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Tyler Durden

[Tyler Durden]

45 minutes ago, BenG said:

@Tyler Durden You were the first to say it...

Great observation. Tyler was not against violence if it served the purpose of bringing down the modern consumer society.

[Raptorsin7]

4 hours ago, Lyubov said:

Gun laws are just fucked in the USA. The very fact that a 17 year old kid can go around pretending to be a cop is crazy. I think there are tons of issues and factors that lead us here but the issue runs deeper than the sort of surface level problem the trial was about. 

Yeah, there are many moving parts and we can that change is needed across all aspects of this case.

But fundamentally this is about whether Kyle Rittenhouse wss guilty of serious charges relating to the deaths.

Given the way the case unfolded its clear that he was provoked into violence by looters and rioters breaking curfew.

If you want to say moving forward we need dramatic change to the entire system then I don't disagree, but that's not the point of the thread.

Theres an assumption here that rioters and looters have a moral justification for being out there, but rittenhouse has no justification.

At worst both sides were clearly in the wrong still being present after curfew and after the protests were over, but Rittenhouse wss aggressed upon and his response was the correct one