Rittenhouse
- Thread starter Al-O-Meter
- Start date
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
LOL!!!!
How did the “leftist” effort at infrastructure turn out? Who won?
How did the “leftist” ballot measure turn out in Minneapolis?
LOL @ anyone who thinks Bill Maher speaks for anyone but himself.
Guys, Twitter isn’t real life. Your “far left” is still marginalized while your far right has absolutely captured and drives the current Republican Party, media, and dominates social media. How did we get so many ****ed up gun laws? It’s not because of the far left.
Ugh I think we’re about done here.
Ridiculous gun laws, rampant racism, vigilantism, and the strongest media arm on the country painting him out to be Jesus Christ. Yeah this isn’t going to take us anywhere good. This is not how democracies are supposed to work folks.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Do you have any examples of “the left” making him out to be a fascist Nazi?
Is the top rated tv host on left wing media doing that?
Are they coming out with a documentary about him?
Are democratic congresspeople doing that?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
The left made him do it cuz bill maher and someone said abolish the police and stuff. The left is always responsible for everything. Trump winning, Covid, Jan 6, congressmen who deny the Holocaust and “now tell followers to be armed and dangerous dangerous.
This is what’s increasingly obnoxious about these debates. People will “both sides” things. Why? Because right wing media dominates the news and social media, they are able to drive the narratives. So any action taken by Republican media or elected officials is justified. This thread is a perfect example. People are blaming “the left” vaguely while we have a Republican congressman saying, “be armed and be dangerous” is ignored. We’re busy talking about “the left” while ignoring one of the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen in politics, a congress person telling his followers to be “armed and dangerous.” Imagine the outrage of Rep Waters had said that or AOC.
Tucker Carlson is making him out to be Jesus. His film crew made a documentary. Imagine the outrage if Rachel Maddow had done the same with The prosecution in the Floyd case.
You have several Republican congresspeople memorializing his actions. Rep Paul Gosar wants to give him the congressional medal of freedom. There’s no attempt frame this as a tragedy that shouldn’t be repeated. Quite the opposite.
The former president is praising Rittenhouse and using him to fundraise.
Racists and terrorists are citing this ruling to defend past actions (Jan 6) to judges while citing it to protect against future actions.
This guy is on conservative radio, writes for conservative outlets, and is a regular on Tucker’s white power hour:
Yet… we’re stuck here talking about “the left.”
Is this really the society you want to live in?
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
You are so far off base on the bolded comment it isn't funny. It would have been far more peaceful without guns in the hands of vigilantes. Period. Full stop. There is no denying that fact. And even if protests get out of hand, if there are no guns in the hands of vigilantes it will be far far less dangerous.
The thing that gets me is if no one went to this thing with guns, no one would have been shot. This was not a castle doctrine kind of thing, where someone is confronting me in my home or on my property and I am defending my life or my family's life. This was multiple people making a decision to go somewhere they felt would be dangerous enough they felt they needed to take a gun to "protect" themselves. If they had stayed home or just not brought a gun, it would have been much more peaceful even if people were yelling and posturing or even fighting. Why did they feel the need to be the police? What was in their psyche that made them think THEY were the one who needed to go "police" the situation there? That was literally Rittenhouse's defense, that he was there to help people. By carrying an AR. How exactly was he going to help then? This vigilante thing is horrifying and every American should be up in arms about it, pun partially intended. We just signed off on allowing people to purposefully inset themselves, while fully armed, into heated situations and take the law into their own hands.
The specter of the angry white man is very very real, and incredibly dangerous.
So don't try to pawn off breaking the peace on anyone but the ones wielding guns when they just had no need to do so. Don't try to pretend the guys with guns were just there trying to be nice and happy and leave people alone until those terrible protestors escalated everything making the guns necessary. Let the police handle the fist fights and whatever rioting might happen. That is their job. Keep the ****ing vigilantes out of it.
Last edited:
Thee Jazz Fan
Well-Known Member
My stance is there were no victims from what happened. I’m down for a good protest but from what I understand, this got violent. There were also none stat employed law enforcement with guns armed to the teeth, then there’s this 17 year old kid armed with not just a shot gun or some hand gun or rifle but a real weapon of war. I’m no law expert but from examining this whole thing, it looks like this kid broke no laws being out here with an AR-15. From the video’s it looks like self defense. I’m good with the verdict. I would be curious to know the story as to how this 17 year old found himself there with a gun? Did his parents encourage him to go and take his gun? Did they even know what was going on?
If his parents allowed him to go with his gun, shame on them for allowing it. What 17 year old should be allowed to be put in that position. It’s sad the media painted the picture it did, but if I’m this kid and I chose to be there with an AR then I need to realize that I’m making myself a target and I might have to shoot someone. So in that case he, IMO isn’t a victim. As a 17 year old he probably should’ve chosen to stay home. Those he shot aren't victims they foolishly chose to attack an armed teen. Really the only victims were business owners.
In the end I’m not sure a 17 year old needs to be there. No one will ever know for sure if he needed to shoot all or any of those people. All made choices that got us to this point. I know the none law enforcement armed civilians were there to protect businesses and such, but one must wonder if there would’ve been a loss of lives had they just not been there. Yes there probably would’ve been more business vandalism, but who knows, I could also be wrong, but I feel like that kid had no business being there. I try imagining my 17-year-old self being there, and how I would’ve handled things. If I had been attacked and threatened like that it might’ve been open season on protesters that night. Yes, Kyle was justified in performing self defense against his attackers, and glad he’s not going to prison, but as a 17 year old you aren’t equipped mentally mentally to always make the right decision in a high stressful situation he was in.
Basically he chose this responsibility, so he in turn regardless of how he thought this through he accepted the risks of what comes with being in a violent situation and armed. Right or wrong, he has to live with the fact that he killed two people. IMO it was self defense, but none the less he killed two people and that will probably haunt him for a while
If his parents allowed him to go with his gun, shame on them for allowing it. What 17 year old should be allowed to be put in that position. It’s sad the media painted the picture it did, but if I’m this kid and I chose to be there with an AR then I need to realize that I’m making myself a target and I might have to shoot someone. So in that case he, IMO isn’t a victim. As a 17 year old he probably should’ve chosen to stay home. Those he shot aren't victims they foolishly chose to attack an armed teen. Really the only victims were business owners.
In the end I’m not sure a 17 year old needs to be there. No one will ever know for sure if he needed to shoot all or any of those people. All made choices that got us to this point. I know the none law enforcement armed civilians were there to protect businesses and such, but one must wonder if there would’ve been a loss of lives had they just not been there. Yes there probably would’ve been more business vandalism, but who knows, I could also be wrong, but I feel like that kid had no business being there. I try imagining my 17-year-old self being there, and how I would’ve handled things. If I had been attacked and threatened like that it might’ve been open season on protesters that night. Yes, Kyle was justified in performing self defense against his attackers, and glad he’s not going to prison, but as a 17 year old you aren’t equipped mentally mentally to always make the right decision in a high stressful situation he was in.
Basically he chose this responsibility, so he in turn regardless of how he thought this through he accepted the risks of what comes with being in a violent situation and armed. Right or wrong, he has to live with the fact that he killed two people. IMO it was self defense, but none the less he killed two people and that will probably haunt him for a while
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
This
Last edited by a moderator:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
The intention was to stop lawlessness. The police had been ordered by government officials to not enforce laws in a certain area. They had a massive presence just outside the area, which was where Rittenhouse was running to after shooting Rosenbaum, but there was no law enforcement being done by any government entities in one area which prompted people of the area to do something. Kyle was part of that effort.
It likely would have worked to stop the lawlessness without anyone getting hurt. Where things went off the rails was when a dumpster down the block got lit on fire and pushed toward the pumps at a gas station. Rittenhouse grabbed a fire extinguisher and ran down the block to put it out before it ignited the gas station. Kyle was inexperienced and didn’t realize the danger he had just put himself in by leaving the large armed group of citizens.
Rittenhouse isn’t a very big guy and obviously looks young. In seeing this kid running down the block by himself, Rosenbaum quickly hid behind a truck to ambush him. This was all captured on FBI drone surveillance. Rittenhouse ran by the truck. Rosenbaum rushed out of his hiding spot. Rittenhouse yelled “friendly, friendly, friendly!” but Rosenbaum didn’t stop. Kyle retreated until Rosenbaum cornered him. Rosenbaum grabbed the barrel of the gun to rip it away from Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse fired 4 times.
Rittenhouse didn’t go to Kenosha to be a vigilante. Rittenhouse didn’t even go to Kenosha to protect Kenosha. Kyle Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to visit his friend who lived on a big piece of property and had some targets set up for plinking. The friend kept an AR15 for Kyle in the gun safe so he could plink targets. Kyle Rittenhouse isn’t an angry white man. He was a High School kid who had no idea that going to his friend’s house would end up with 2 people dead and the President of the United States calling him a White Supremacist.
If you want to know why the citizens of the area felt the need to be the police, perhaps you should ask the police or politicians who ordered the police to stand down.
Just stop with the racist stereotypes.
Last edited:
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I disagree about Rittenhouse's victims. We have had active shooter scenarios beaten into us for years now. Everyone is hypersensitive to it, and in a protest, they are already emotionally charged. I think it is entirely rational to think that people would want to prevent an active shooter situation given the atmosphere in the situation. I know I am way more on the lookout for active shooters, especially since we do drills for it at work a couple times a year. Run/Hide/Fight. Only if you are out in the open and you see the "active shooter" brandishing an AR, which has also been beaten into us as the weapon of choice by mass shooters, and you really have no where to run or hide, and you want to get a handle on the situation before it gets out of hand, you will try to stop it. I think that is a rational response. Not the smartest response, but not completely insane either. And that is normally the standard applied in the law, the "reasonable person". This is always a point of debate but I feel that a reasonable person would be concerned and want to stop the active shooter who is walking around with an AR presumably looking for people to shoot. Why else would he be there with a gun in the open like that? A reasonable person would be more likely to expect someone to carry concealed for personal protection and to carry open if they were looking for people to shoot.
I know @Gameface went the route of allowing the verdict to dictate the situation and acknowledging it was just a rough situation all around, and that is really the best way to look at it, again, from a reasonable person. But I still think he was more correct when he pointed out that the kid had a murder fantasy he got to fulfill and what we saw as possible contrition during the trial was really just the weight of those murders overwhelming him as the reality of it set in. He wanted to kill people, got his wish, then realized the reality of it was nowhere near the fantasy, as with most things in life.
The kid is still responsible for multiple deaths that would have been so easily prevented if he had watched everything on TV. Rittenhouse simply choosing to go there with his weapon, in and of itself, was the catalyst for all of it. Every single bit. Regardless of everyone else's response to it, which can and will be debated endlessly, the one thing that cannot be argued is that if he had chosen to stay home instead of insert himself needlessly with fantasies of vigilantism in his mind, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The kid is guilty whether he or anyone else likes to admit it. Sure by the letter of the law he gets away with it. From any standard or morality he is directly responsible for multiple deaths, and frankly I hope it eats him up inside.
I want to preface this by saying that I don't want to get into a political argument with you, so let's please not go there. I don't have a political party, but I generally lean left more than right on most issues. I'm only going to bring up a few examples because you asked. This is not inclusive - there are many more I could've chosen:
Biden himself tweeted about white supremacists, which featured a video including Rittenhouse. A host on MSNBC referred to Rittenhouse as "a little murderous white supremacist". Congresswoman Cori Bush tweeted that the system isn't built to "hold white supremacists accountable" (referring directly to Rittenhouse).
If this is directed at me, I can assure you that I'm not at ALL justifying what the Republican media is doing. In fact, I'll even segue into a rant about that.
I think it's deplorable that the media is depicting Kyle as a hero. I think there's a great chance it'll inspire other people to be vigilantes, and lead to extremely dangerous situations in future protests. It's disgusting. Furthermore, I hate guns. I hate this country's embarrassing gun control laws. I think it's abhorrent that anybody, let alone a kid, can openly carry an AR-15 in any public setting, let alone a volatile one, and not face any consequences.
The reason I'm annoyed with the depiction of Rittenhouse as a white supremacist that got away with murder, and the tornado of misinformation pertaining to the facts of the trial, really isn't because I want to "both sides" this, although I guess it looks that way. Depicting him as a murderer and a white supremacist and misrepresenting the facts of the trial, to me, accomplishes nothing except further stirring divisiveness and increasing the likelihood of more violence. The reality is, under the law, the verdict was correct: It's self-defense. The focus, to me, SHOULD be on how the laws on gun control need drastic fixing. The law shouldn't allow for the very foundation of the situation that led to the shootings. I could go on and on about this, and about how much I hate the NRA, but I'll stop here.
Last edited:
He's certainly comfortable around white supremacists. That doesn't make him guilty, of course, but he's not an innocent.