Does anyone think it was a good idea for him to go there with a gun? - Kyle Rittenhouse Discussion

[–] Guitar King (4994) 3 years ago

We can't agree. Kyle needed that gun since law enforcement were letting Biden's Antifa terrorists Burn, Loot, and Murder. Kyle used that gun to prevent Antifa from burning down a black man's business and that gun saved his life when criminals tried to kill him.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8837) 3 years ago

Hear, hear!

reply

[–] jewoogle (2269) 3 years ago

that is why we need the 2nd Amendment. the police work for the government, and the government hates our fucking guts!! from my cold dead hands!!!!!!!!! USA USA USA USA!!!!!! MUricaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"Biden's Antifa terrorists"

This happened in 2020, you brainwashed moron.

reply

[–] Guitar King (4994) 3 years ago

Who was the Democrat nominee for POTUS in 2020, RETARD?

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Candidate?! CANDIDATE, LOL?!

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

terrible mistake, and i hope he regrets it.
doesn't change the fact that every shot was fired in self-defense.
but yes, a very bad thing for him to have done. if i had a 17 yr old who'd done that, i'd be ashamed and disappointed.

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

You would be ashamed of someone who helped to defend buildings and businesses from being burnt to the ground and was helping with removing graffiti.

Strange sentiment to have

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i'm all for adults doing that. applaud them for it.
particularly since the government abandoned their responsibility to maintain order.
the age is the issue here.
i can't support allowing a kid into that situation.

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

17 is not a kid get real.

He went to do the right thing and defend a neighbourhood and community from basically terrorists that were burning, looting and rioting.

The lad is a hero and I hope there are more like him. We need more kyles in this world to go against the mob.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

at 17 you are not fully formed, and i am fine calling a young man at that age a kid. people do all sorts of things at that age that they regret. i would have hoped there were adults in his life that would have stopped him, and i hope they regret not stopping him.

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

” at 17 you are not fully formed”

Oh, you are too! You talk like Kyle was 7 instead of 17 almost 18!

BTW, at 17 you can be handed a rifle and taught to shoot terrorists…military does that you know. Kyle was not a kid. He is a young man trained to know how to handle a weapon. If I had a 17 year old son or grandson I would be so damn proud of him. We need more Kyles in this country.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1353) 3 years ago

That point is invalid. You're not fully formed until you're 25, yet before that you can drink, consent, and join the military.

A kid is ages 12 and below.

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

I’m thinking of the movie “Red Dawn”. How apropos the movie is to what we are witnessing today.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

ok, fine.

i don't think we need to get hung up on my use of the word kid. i was using it in a colloquial way. if you wanna fight over that, then i'm happy to cede on that point.

he's a very young adult, and we all recognize that people that age are not fully formed. the adults responsible for him should have kept him out of that situation. i don't hold him fully accountable for that, the same way i don't hold any 17 year old fully accountable as i would an older person.

i think it was a terrible mistake for him to be there.
i think it was wrong for people to be rioting, and for the government to drop their responsibility to maintain peace. i'm a-ok with private citizens protecting themselves and their property. i'm not ok with a 17 year old arming himself and putting himself in the middle of a very violent, volatile situation.

hope that's clear. i've made my case as best i know how.

happy chatting to you, anyway.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1353) 3 years ago

I understand what you're saying, but if you want to make a point, you'll need to choose better wording and make stronger arguments.

As we've already established, "not fully formed" is a poor choice of words. The body develops until 25, and in America people are now dependent on their parents until 26. In both cases people stopped being "kids" long before that. Ideally, 17-year-olds wouldn't be arming themselves and getting involved in fire-fights, but when the cops aren't allowed to do their jobs, and criminals and extremists are out there destroying property and abusing innocent civilians, brave law-abiding citizens need to rise up to defend themselves and others.

It's not unheard of for a 17-year-old to arm up to fight or defend himself, wars have been fought with soldiers as young as 17. Are we at war? Well, depends on who you talk to. Nobody's made an official declaration, but the Left has made it very clear they'd rather fight, gaslight, abuse, etc, than talk things out peacefully and maturely with the Right.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i think i've made this clear already, but i am absolutely on-board with pointing the finger at the government who stepped aside and let the riots happen. and the rioters as well of course.

when they allowed chaos, i don't know what they could have expected other than that the chaos would escalate.

i fully support the verdicts, and don't really think any other verdict could have rightfully been reached.

my point, which i think you've partially agreed with in your second paragraph, is that as a 17 year old, rittenhouse should have been stopped from being their by his parents or an adult in his life.

anyway, i'm not here to bicker.

i've tried to make my case as best i can. if i've failed, then i'll take full responsibility for that! (i'm an adult, more or less).

i think this david french piece did a very good job of capturing some of my own feelings. perhaps it's best if i just let this link speak for me, though i'm not as opposed to open carry as he says here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-right-self-defense-role-model/620715/

reply

[–] Kowalski (77019) 3 years ago

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH...I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS TOPIC.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

thanks!

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

for the record, i think we should start a meme campaign to have rittenhouse recognized as 'america's sweetheart.'

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

” i'm not ok with a 17 year old arming himself and putting himself in the middle of a very violent, volatile situation.”

So, you believe every 17 year old (almost 18) should be yanked out of the military because he’s armed. He’s found “himself in the middle of a very violent, volatile situation.” That is the day to day situation in the middle east. Kyle could most likely best some of those armed 17 year olds. I’ve witnessed 17 year old young men more mature and level headed than 25 year old men.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

well, that's a fair point, but i don't think many 17 year olds in the us military are operating with much autonomy in places that saw the kind of rioting taking place last year, so i don't think that's a perfect comparison. maybe i'm wrong about that.

so i'd probably qualify my opinion to say that a 17 yr kid who had a year of military training might be suited for something like that. maybe. but i'd still say it's a very bad idea.

but without that qualification, i'll stand by my position that 17 year olds should not arm themselves and put themselves into the middle of riots. i think that is on its face a terrible thing to do, fraught with peril! and something that can and in this case did lead to tragic consequences.

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

Tragic consequences for him, but a rightful consequence for the pond scum he took out. I believe he was proficient in the use of firearms. Age had nothing to do with his adept handling of his weapon. He was confident and respected his weapon. I doubt many in their 20’s or 30’s could have handled it as well unless military trained.

Many young men in the north are hunters. They’ve been trained by their elders and are quite knowledgeable about firearms. All of my male cousins have been going on hunts since they were 6 years old. By the time they were twelve they could handle a firearm as well as any adult.

I would certainly believe serving in Afghanistan is fraught with peril. I don’t think you are giving young men like Kyle much credit. Maybe another 17 year old would not have been able to handle the situation, but Kyle did. He and those akin to him aren’t kids. They are young men.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

well, if we're going to follow through with comparisons like afghanistan, then i'd go back to what i and others have said: if armed people, including 17 year olds, were to have been there, they should have been there as part of the national guard or whatever other forces the government had available to them. they should have been organized and trained so that they could rein in the rioting and looting in an organized way.

if that had been done, a lot of destruction and those three (edit - two deaths, sorry) deaths wouldn't have happened.

because the government didn't do their duty to protect its citizens, people acted on their own. i am all for that, in general. i'm just not for it in the case of a 17 year old.

there's no hard rule on when i would be ok with it. that's a fuzzy thing. 17 is on the bubble. but i think in general guys are too immature, prone to act in anger or bravado, what have you, at that age.

regardless, it's clear that he acted in self-defense in every shot he fired and i'm glad he's free.

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

”if that had been done, a lot of destruction and those three deaths wouldn't have happened.”

But, don’t you see most of us don’t care about those *two* deaths and another wounded. We are proud of Kyle and hope there are more mature Kyles out there. I would hope my grandsons would have the same intestinal fortitude to stand their ground in order to protect themselves and others.

” because the government didn't do their duty to protect its citizens, people acted on their own. i am all for that, in general. i'm just not for it in the case of a 17 year old.”

That’s just it! The government wasn’t there! A 17 year old level headed Kyle Rittenhouse was. A lunatic was on the loose using a chain against others prior to his ambushing Kyle. No one was stopping him until Kyle did. Most of us are grateful especially little boys.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i understand the indifference to the deaths of those two people.

that's not something i share, because of my own personal beliefs.

but i'm content to leave it at that.

happy moviechatting to you, regardless of our differences.

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

Back at cha!

reply

[–] kspkap (13570) 3 years ago

”The Looming National Security Crisis: Young Americans Unable to Serve in the Military”

https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-looming-national-security-crisis-young-americans-unable-serve-the-military

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16049) 3 years ago

I've come to accept that gunning down people destroying your property seems to be ok.

but shouldnt he have left the graffiti cleaning until after the riot?

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

H was there all day from morning till night doing community service because he is decent human being. He was then contacted to help protect a business from rioters, looters and arsonists. You know the ones that don't live there and came from all over to "protest" by burning, looting and rioting, those decent, wonderful people.

I've come to accept that gunning down people destroying your property seems to be ok.

That isn't what happened and you know it. But nice try in trolling and bending the truth. He didn't gun anyone down unless you are on about the guy kicking him in the head or the one smashing him over the head with a skateboard or the 3rd who pointed his gun at him. Would you rather kyle be dead for doing good in the community, would that have been better and a pedo still be alive. Maybe you prefer criminals being safe is that what your after.

People like you disgust me. You defend arsonists and looters under the guise of protesters, no protesters don't burn down buildingss and destroy businesses.
Finally there were about 100 poeple with guns but you don't seem bothered about them.

reply

[–] seandpf1989 (173) 3 years ago

If the police weren't prevented from doing their jobs then children wouldn't have to do the job for them. Antifa trash would have razed Kenosha entirely to the ground given the chance.

reply

[–] Shannon82 (57) 3 years ago

Exactly. The people have a right to defend against rioting, violence and destruction.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2146) 3 years ago

Not being American myself, what was preventing the police from being there?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16049) 3 years ago

a good question.

The only answer you'll get from the right wingers on here is:
"Biden told them to let his commie friends burn loot murder , so they were all at home with their feet up"

I suspect the truth is less crazy, more tactical.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2146) 3 years ago

If police staying at home results in civilians legally shooting the rioters then it looks like a win win situation to me.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16049) 3 years ago

I dunno , as a backup maybe,
personally i'd like the police out there shooting them first .
It'd save a lot of time ,effort , ammo , personal endangerment, paperwork and court cases on my part .

reply

[–] CraigC (8481) 3 years ago

Democrat politicians.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

Exactly this^
They were told to stand down.

reply

[–] Befus (497) 3 years ago

No we can't agree. If he didn't have that gun he'd be dead.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

Wasn't the reason people attacked him BECAUSE he had a gun?

reply

[–] Guitar King (4994) 3 years ago

Biden's Antifa terrorists attacked Kyle because he prevented them from burning down a black man's business.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"Wasn't the reason people attacked him BECAUSE he had a gun?"

Wouldn't that be the stupidest reason ever to attack someone?

As the results clearly demonstrated.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

I agree it is a very stupid reason in this case, but I'm pretty sure that's why they did it.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"but I'm pretty sure that's why they did it."

BLM rioters killed several unarmed people last summer. So your 'pretty sure' is meaningless.

Wonder if this guy would've survived if he had a gun:

https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-trump-supporter-killed-devine/

It’s spine-chilling to hear activists in Portland cheering about the cold-blooded murder of a Trump supporter Saturday night.

“I am not sad that a f–king fascist died tonight,” a woman shouts into a megaphone at a BLM-Antifa gathering after a man was shot dead nearby.

“He was a f–king Nazi. Our community held its own and took out the trash.”

Videos posted by independent journalists Andy Ngo and Ian Miles Cheong show an American flag being burned in celebration as the crowd revels in the news.

Online video appears to show the murder. You can hear a man’s voice: “We got a couple right here.” And then two shots ring out.

The victim, identified as Aaron Danielson, reportedly was wearing the cap of conservative-libertarian group Patriot Prayer, whose caravan of pickup trucks festooned with flags drove through the city that day.

But because he was a supporter of President Trump, the victim did not deserve to live, according to BLM-Antifa.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

My "pretty sure" is in reference to what I recall the reason for the 3rd victim approaching Kyle. I believe he said he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter and that was the reason he approached him in the first place.

To go after someone carrying a gun IS a stupid idea as I've said. If that EMT really thought that Kyle was on a shooting spree, why wouldn't he have taken him out from a distance with his pistol. Why close the gap to only a couple of feet?

My main point is that wielding a gun escalates a situation.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

Grosskreutz was part of the mob chasing Rittenhouse down the street. With a gun of his own. And while he claimed to be a medic, he didn't try to help Rosenbaum, instead he went after the shooter. His testimony that he thought Rittenhouse was an 'active shooter' didn't make sense, because he witnessed Rittenhouse shooting only those who were attacking him.

I showed you an example of someone not having a gun, yet they were still killed by the mob.

reply

[–] asom (6881) 3 years ago

Murders by democrats are always justified.

reply

[–] John Kyle (683) 3 years ago

About 100 others were armed the same and not attacked.......Stop showing your ignorance

reply

[–] CraigC (8481) 3 years ago

If true, that tells you something about the mental capacity of the person attacking. Not at all an indictment of having a firearm. Nothing about that line of reasoning makes any sense whatsoever.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2146) 3 years ago

The people who attacked him is why clothes have labels warning people not to iron them when wearing them.

reply

[–] seagal72 (1994) 3 years ago

I think it was....and I hope all rioters take note?

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

Rioters and vigilantes alike. I don't think anyone would want to go through death, severe injury, or the prison system.

reply

[–] CraigC (8481) 3 years ago

Defending yourself and/or property is not vigilantism.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

It wasn't Kyle's property he was defending

reply

[–] CraigC (8481) 3 years ago

Doesn't matter.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

Defending something that isn't yours = Vigilantism

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

"Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society's designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body."

reply

[–] CraigC (8481) 3 years ago

Bullshit. Are the police obligated to protect your property? No. Are they obligated to protect you? No. Who does that leave? So if I stand in front of my store, I'm okay but if I stand in front of my parents' store I'm a vigilante? Bullshit. Are bank security officers vigilantes? No. Let's not get stupid. I think you need to remember who works for who. We're not subjects. We're citizens and we have a God-given right to defense. Be it ourselves, our families, our communities, our property, our state or our country.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

You were the one who wanted to argue over semantics

reply

[–] CraigC (8481) 3 years ago

This isn't semantics. Defending yourself and others is not vigilantism. God. How stupid.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

"Defending yourself and/or property is not vigilantism." You are literally arguing over the definition of a word. That is semantics. Then proceed to insult me when I put out the definition.

reply

[–] CraigC (8481) 3 years ago

That would be like characterizing "self defense vs murder" as petty semantics. Wrong.

Vigilantism is taking the law or rather the enforcement thereof into your own hands. Bypassing the normal processes usually handled by officials. Presumably after a law has been broken. Tell me, what "official" is responsible for the security of YOUR person and/or property? Cops? No. YOU! You can accomplish this yourself or through others, hired or otherwise.

Vigilantism, and especially the way it's been used in this context, assumes that a crime has been committed and Rittenhouse hunted down the criminals responsible and made them pay. This would be superceding the normal course of investigation and arrest by police, followed by prosecution by the district attorney. That is not what happened. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

To say it isn't semantics and then argue that it is. Lol cringe.

My original point is that anyone going to a riot should think twice after seeing this whole ordeal no matter what their intentions are.

reply

[–] CraigC (8481) 3 years ago

So people who want to defend against a riot should question that urge but rioters are okay? Got it. Another clueless liberal with a broken moral compass.

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

Nope that is not actually what I am saying. What I am saying is that both sides should consider the potential risks of going to a riot.

reply

[–] Shannon82 (57) 3 years ago

I would disagree. A town, a community, families and businesses were in danger. Violence and destruction always accompany "protests". When the police and National Guard show up as representatives of the people or the military goes to war for the people, everyone is fine with that. Why can't "we the people" act directly to protect rather than wait for our representatives to do it?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

What you're saying is that when idiots are rioting, regular folks shouldn't protect their property and lives from those idiots.

If you were that property owner, and your life's work was being threatened, would you want someone to show up and help you?

reply

[–] Shannon82 (57) 3 years ago

Perfect!

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11851) 3 years ago

Why were rioters there? Yes if they had just stayed home and minded their own business they’d be alive today.

reply

[–] jewoogle (2269) 3 years ago

they were there cause the police shot some kidnapper/wife beater who was trying to get into a vehicle and drive away (cars are deadly weapons cops could have been killed by this guy chimping out) the whole riot was for some criminal who got what he deserved, then more criminals who showed up to protest and also got what they deserved aswell. feel good story if u ask me

reply