Current Events > Rittenhouse for his gun charges dropped.

(+) Yeah! (+)

ThePrinceFish posted...

The only precedence this sets is that you can be attacked on camera, defend yourself, have half the country believing you are a murderer despite the evidence of their own eyes, and have the state drag you through a malicious prosecution over the course of a year. All ending with your life in tatters even if you are acquitted.

Yeah that totally sounds fun. I bet people are going to be all over that.

the precedent is someone can arm himself to the teeth and go to counter protest an event taking place (it could be a peaceful event, it could be a chaotic rally full of arsonists, it doesnt matter) and put himself in a position where he will be attacked by the mob there so he can shoot them without consequence.


---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

the precedent is someone can arm himself to the teeth and go to counter protest an event taking place (it could be a peaceful event, it could be a chaotic rally full of arsonists, it doesnt matter) and put himself in a position where he will be attacked by the mob there so he can shoot them without consequence.

If you are attacked by the mob or a belligerent individual, shooting them is justified and you shouldn't face consequences for it. Especially if you tried to retreat first. That is a good precedent to set.

The alternative you're implying is that you just let the mob beat you, possibly to death.

Esrac posted...

If you are attacked by the mob or a belligerent individual, shooting them is justified and you shouldn't face consequences for it. Especially if you tried to retreat first. That is a good precedent to set.

The alternative you're implying is that you just let the mob beat you, possibly to death.

No the alternative is not going there at all. But if you can poke a bear and get it to attack you and have people blame the bear after you kill it, youre more likely to do it. Something should be done about people purposefully putting themselves in those situations with that intent, then claiming self defense. I know you cant prove in a court of law intent like that, but Kyle said on recording that he wanted to shoot these people, then he created a scenario in which he was able to do that. The alternative in this case shouldnt have been Kyle getting beat up, it should have been Kyle staying home. And I know him going there isnt against the law but were beating that whole discussing this case and what potential issues it can lead to in the future.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

No the alternative is not going there at all. But if you can poke a bear and get it to attack you and have people blame the bear after you kill it, youre more likely to do it. Something should be done about people purposefully putting themselves in those situations then claiming self defense.

I wish people like you had the self-awareness to realize how insane you sound.

TheVipaGTS posted...

No the alternative is not going there at all.

Does this apply to violent rioters too? Or just a stupid kid in over his head.

---

Esrac posted...

If you are attacked by the mob or a belligerent individual, shooting them is justified and you shouldn't face consequences for it. Especially if you tried to retreat first. That is a good precedent to set.

you say that now.

so could antifa people strap some ARs on their backs and go to a trump rally and yell fuck trump and wave around fuck trump signs? Its their right, correct? And if a trump supporter gets mad at them, maybe he or she tries to take one of their signs or shoves them around, then its Rambo time?

see the horrible precedent it sets? Imagine there is a pro-life walk and a bunch of abortists take big guns with them and go walk among the people there, exercising their 1st amendment right to call them names, and then temperaments get heated and shooting time.

see how bad this precedent is?

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

I wish people like you had the self-awareness to realize how insane you sound.

How is what I said insane? People are insane. Its not a logical thing to do. What Kyle did wasnt a logical thing to do. People do stupid things. If they think they can get away with that stupid thing theyre more likely to do it. Encouraging what Kyle did, against the law or not, is a bad idea.

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

you say that now.

so could antifa people strap some ARs on their backs and go to a trump rally and yell fuck trump and wave around fuck trump signs? Its their right, correct? And if a trump supporter gets mad at them, maybe he or she tries to take one of their signs or shoves them around, then its Rambo time?

see the horrible precedent it sets? Imagine there is a pro-life walk and a bunch of abortists take big guns with them and go walk among the people there, exercising their 1st amendment right to call them names, and then temperaments get heated and shooting time.

see how bad this precedent is?

You know Rittenhouse was retreating right? Trying to escape without hurting anyone? Did you watch the trial?

---

Esrac posted...

If you are attacked by the mob or a belligerent individual, shooting them is justified and you shouldn't face consequences for it. Especially if you tried to retreat first. That is a good precedent to set.

The alternative you're implying is that you just let the mob beat you, possibly to death.

so can we say you agree that if there is a pro-life or pro-trump peaceful demonstration, counter-protesters could go to confront them with guns strapped to their backs and manifest their opposition to their ideas and very existence?


---

TheVipaGTS posted...

How is what I said insane? People are insane. Its not a logical thing to do. What Kyle did wasnt a logical thing to do. People do stupid things. If they think they can get away with that stupid thing theyre more likely to do it. Encouraging what Kyle did, against the law or not, is a bad idea.

You didn't answer my question.

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

You know Rittenhouse was retreating right? Trying to escape without hurting anyone? Did you watch the trial?

You know the answer to these questions. He's not a sincere participant in this discussion.

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

You know Rittenhouse was retreating right? Trying to escape without hurting anyone? Did you watch the trial?

Ok? Same scenario. I go to a trump rally with a gun and say fuck trump. A trump supporter attacks me (its happened a lot) I retreat and others follow after me. Im justified in shooting those following me? By the law, sure, but that type of behavior shouldnt be encouraged just because its my right. If I intend to counter protest them its one thing. If the scene is already violent Im better off staying home.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

How is what I said insane? People are insane. Its not a logical thing to do. What Kyle did wasnt a logical thing to do. People do stupid things. If they think they can get away with that stupid thing theyre more likely to do it. Encouraging what Kyle did, against the law or not, is a bad idea.

I can't reason with a person who's unironically using the "She shouldn't have been dressed like that if she didn't want to get raped" argument. You are almost certainly beyond help.

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

You know Rittenhouse was retreating right? Trying to escape without hurting anyone? Did you watch the trial?

so he retreated some blocks, on foot, after having driven 20 or 30 miles to insert himself in the midst of a violent mob he opposed ideologically?


---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

I can't reason with a person who's unironically using the "She shouldn't have been dressed like that if she didn't want to get raped" argument. You are almost certainly beyond help.

Wowthats not even the same thing at all and you know that. Someone dressed any way doesnt give you the right to attack them or rape them. If a situation is already violent (like Jan 6) Im better off staying home. Not going there with a gun. YOU sound fuckin insane now. Im just talking about what we should encourage. Dont ever fuckin try and compare this to someone being raped because of what they wore you POS.

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

so he retreated some blocks, on foot, after having driven 20 or 30 miles to insert himself in the midst of a violent mob he opposed ideologically?

See what I mean? He's absolutely not taking part in this discussion with good faith.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Ok? Same scenario. I go to a trump rally with a gun and say fuck trump. A trump supporter attacks me (its happened a lot) I retreat and others follow after me. Im justified in shooting those following me? By the law, sure, but that type of behavior shouldnt be encouraged just because its my right. If I intend to counter protest them its one thing. If the scene is already violent Im better off staying home.

If somehow you're running off and they bring you to the ground and have the intention to disarm you and beat you to death, then yeah. You're justified in defending yourself. Then congratulations, you're just as much of an idiot as Rittenhouse.

Just asking, did you watch the trial at all?

---

It literally is the same thing but like I said, no self-awareness.

TheVipaGTS posted...

Wowthats not even the same thing at all and you know that. Someone dressed any way doesnt give you the right to attack them

You're correct, except for the part about them not being the same thing. Somebody being at a protest to put out fires and provide medical aid doesn't give anybody the right to attack them unprovoked.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You know the answer to these questions. He's not a sincere participant in this discussion.

you know your reputation precedes you right ?

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

If somehow you're running off and they bring you to the ground and have the intention to disarm you and beat you to death, then yeah. You're justified in defending yourself. Then congratulations, you're just as much of an idiot as Rittenhouse.

Just asking, did you watch the trial at all?

Yes. He was an idiot. Im saying someone else doing that would be an idiot. Were agreeing so Im not sure why youre arguing with me. My point is we shouldnt encourage it and given the inevitable result of the trial, we need to make sure more idiots dont get encouraged to act as Kyle did just because he got off.

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

you know your reputation precedes you right ?

I should hope it does.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Wowthats not even the same thing at all and you know that.

Intentionally misrepresenting people's arguments is his whole thing dude, this happens and he gets called out for it literally all the time

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You're correct, except for the part about them not being the same thing. Somebody being at a protest to put out fires and provide medical aid doesn't give anybody the right to attack them unprovoked.

ok, so lets suppose antifa goes to a trump rally, and offer to give first aids to people if needed. Theyre walking around with antifa uniforms and guns on their backs.

same situation ?

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Yes. He was an idiot. Im saying someone else doing that would be an idiot. Were agreeing so Im not sure why youre arguing with me. My point is we shouldnt encourage it and given the inevitable result of the trial, we need to make sure more idiots dont get encouraged to act as Kyle did just because he got off.

If they point you're trying to make is that unqualified people shouldn't go into situations and try to resolve them on their own, you've done a terrible job of it. Because it sounds like you just want to see Rittenhouse jailed for no legal reason.

That said, he should serve time for unlawful possession of a firearm in my opinion.

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

ok, so lets suppose antifa goes to a trump rally, and offer to give first aids to people if needed. Theyre walking around with antifa uniforms and guns on their backs.

same situation ?

Yes, and nobody should attack that person.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I should hope it does.

so you got a thing for humiliation?

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

That said, he should serve time for unlawful possession of a firearm in my opinion.

Why should he? The firearm was actually possessed lawfully.

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

so you got a thing for humiliation?

Why would I be humiliated? I'm proud of my reputation.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Why would I be humiliated? I'm proud of my reputation.

go make a topic asking the politics board how they feel about you and report us the results

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

you say that now.

so could antifa people strap some ARs on their backs and go to a trump rally and yell fuck trump and wave around fuck trump signs? Its their right, correct? And if a trump supporter gets mad at them, maybe he or she tries to take one of their signs or shoves them around, then its Rambo time?

see the horrible precedent it sets? Imagine there is a pro-life walk and a bunch of abortists take big guns with them and go walk among the people there, exercising their 1st amendment right to call them names, and then temperaments get heated and shooting time.

see how bad this precedent is?

First to all, that is a wildly dishonest comparison. Comparing a political rally to a riot that had been burning parts of the city down the previous night. It wasn't some peaceful protest, they had already caused over $50 million in damage the previous night.

On top of that, this isn't a situation of someone aggressively antagonizing someone into attacking him. This is someone who was offering first aid and putting out fires and was then threatened and attacked by a lunatic because he put out that lunatic's literal dumpster fire.

Second, if the hypothetical Trump supporters or anti-abortion activists start physically attacking and actively trying to kill the counter-demonstrators, then absolutely, 100% they have a right to use their guns to defend themselves.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Why should he? The firearm was actually possessed lawfully.

Because it's a lighter charger and might help ease all of the shit that's inevitably going to fly when he walks. It's kind of sacrificial, but I think it would be the best option for long term stability not only in Kenosha, but also the political state of the US. Otherwise people are always going to spout, "White supremacist murders peaceful protesters and gets off scot free!"

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

Because it's a lighter charger and might help ease all of the shit that's inevitably going to fly when he walks. It's kind of sacrificial, but I think it would be the best option for long term stability not only in Kenosha, but also the political state of the US. Otherwise people are always going to spout, "White supremacist murders peaceful protesters and gets off scot free!"

Jesus Christ...

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

go make a topic asking the politics board how they feel about you and report us the results

Being hated by people on the politics board means I've done something right, lmao.

Why would I be ashamed of that? Do you think the people on the politics board have valid opinions? Do you think their judgements can hurt anybody?

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

Because it's a lighter charger and might help ease all of the shit that's inevitably going to fly when he walks. It's kind of sacrificial, but I think it would be the best option

He possessed the gun legally, though. You can't convict him of a crime that he objectively did not commit.

---

ThePrinceFish posted...

Jesus Christ...

Yeah, I know. I'm not happy about it either. But today reality is subjective, and if he serves nothing, I'm sure there'll be some pretty rough fallout.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

He possessed the gun legally, though. You can't convict him of a crime that he objectively did not commit.

I know, I'm not personally a fan of it either. I know he didn't do anything wrong. But unfortunately a very wide array of people want to see his head on a platter. Very violent people.

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

Yeah, I know. I'm not happy about it either. But today reality is subjective, and if he serves nothing, I'm sure there'll be some pretty rough fallout.

You can't convict somebody of a crime they didn't commit just because you fear the fallout if you don't. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. Court of public opinion doesn't get a say in an actual trial.

---

AssultTank posted...

Was he stupid to be there? Probably.
Does being stupid negate your right to self defense? No.
If the politics were swapped, it was someone who supported BLM who gunned down a few Trump humpers, I would say the same thing.

If you are attacked, and you have attempted everything short of lethal force at your disposal, shoot the attacker.

Rittenhouse was attacked, he attempted to retreat (This is extremely important), he was chased down, he kept trying to retreat until he was grabbed by his attacker who had a weapon (A chain is definitely a weapon). He then turned and shot.

He did everything he could to avoid lethal force before employing it.

Him having the option to have not been there is just irrelevant noise from people trying to distract from the facts of the case. His reason for being there is irrelevant once he started retreating. None of it matters. He tried to escape the situation he was in at the time. He was unable to and he defended himself. That is what the evidence shows.

I would be MORE worried about the precedent that is set if he is convicted. It would make self defense in Wisconsin almost impossible to use as a legal defense for any reason. We do not want to strip the right of self defense from the people. That just enables people like Rosenbaum to attack more people, it enables rapists and muggers. After all, you shouldn't have been outside in an area you knew was high in crime with a weapon...

Hit the nail on the head chief.

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

Yeah, I know. I'm not happy about it either. But today reality is subjective, and if he serves nothing, I'm sure there'll be some pretty rough fallout.

I cannot believe you would advocate to sacrifice some kid in the name of satisfying insane people who do not actually want anything but destruction. It doesn't matter that it would be a lesser charge. It's utterly bananas to say that someone should be convicted of a crime that they are blatantly innocent of just so that the mob won't be angered. That's so wrong.

---

At the end of the day, I just love how the right is trying to act like they care about justice, when every other case of a cop doing wrong, or a Trump supporter doing wrong (like Jan 6) gets excused and handwaved. You guys just like Kyle because hes a right wing kid who went to counter BLM protesters. You found a case where you can champion a guy like that because the law is on your side. Thats cool, but At least be man enough to admit that. Youre not concerned about justice.

and before anyone says it, Ive conceded long ago that Kyle will be innocent. I was wrong about the legality of the case. Doesnt mean I have to cheer for what he did, though.

---

AssultTank posted...

Was he stupid to be there? Probably.
Does being stupid negate your right to self defense? No.
If the politics were swapped, it was someone who supported BLM who gunned down a few Trump humpers, I would say the same thing.

If you are attacked, and you have attempted everything short of lethal force at your disposal, shoot the attacker.

Rittenhouse was attacked, he attempted to retreat (This is extremely important), he was chased down, he kept trying to retreat until he was grabbed by his attacker who had a weapon (A chain is definitely a weapon). He then turned and shot.

He did everything he could to avoid lethal force before employing it.

Him having the option to have not been there is just irrelevant noise from people trying to distract from the facts of the case. His reason for being there is irrelevant once he started retreating. None of it matters. He tried to escape the situation he was in at the time. He was unable to and he defended himself. That is what the evidence shows.

I would be MORE worried about the precedent that is set if he is convicted. It would make self defense in Wisconsin almost impossible to use as a legal defense for any reason. We do not want to strip the right of self defense from the people. That just enables people like Rosenbaum to attack more people, it enables rapists and muggers. After all, you shouldn't have been outside in an area you knew was high in crime with a weapon...

/topic
---

Alt Righters really alt righting this topic.

I would love to see their reaction when trump supporters get killed under self defense by someone being where they didn't belong.

---

AssultTank posted...

Does being stupid negate your right to self defense? No.

Reckless homicide says otherwise.

---

Rittenhouse wasn't doing anything wrong there. He was trying to help give first aid and put away fires.

The rioters were in the wrong. They were destroying property and setting fires.

There's only one right side to this situation.

Tmaster148 posted...

Alt Righters really alt righting this topic.

I would love to see their reaction when trump supporters get killed under self defense by someone being where they didn't belong.

In your hypothetical, what kind of place would be where they didnt belong?

Crescente posted...

Rittenhouse wasn't doing anything wrong there. He was trying to help give first aid and put away fires.

The rioters were in the wrong. They were destroying property and setting fires.

There's only one right side to this situation.

So it's perfectly reasonable for citizens to go around patrolling and "protect" businesses that aren't their's with rifles, pointing them at people and threatening them as a deterrent?

---