Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[ButchPlz]

I'd wager that it is. Protecting yourself and community from aggressors is a good idea. I encourage everyone to carry for that purpose.

Especially in situations where the police are heavily politicized. Remember, "protect and serve" is a motto, not a legal requirement.

 

[Vol8188]

How many riots did you go to armed and ready to defend the community last year? And if you didn’t, why not?

You’re making it sound as if this was some sort of civic duty.

Saying something is nobel and required are too different things. I donated 0 dollars to ending HIV last year. That doesn't mean I oppose the act.

The issue is you are showing open opposition to people protecting their community. It's an absurd stance.

 

[Vol8188]

I'd wager that it is. Protecting yourself and community from aggressors is a good idea. I encourage everyone to carry for that purpose.

I've been waiting for someone to call us out with the media lie that he wasn't from this community.

 

[rjd970]

I'm pointing out teenagers and young people going into dangerous situations, all to (in their perspective) defend their communities. Don't be obtuse. I even gave you a 100% directly comparable situation with the Koreans. Call them idiots. Go on the record. Otherwise you continue to be inconsistent at best, cowardly at worst (and most likely).

You evidently have a hard time reading. I have said repeatedly, that if it were my business or house I would be out there armed and ready to defend it. I have no issue with the Koreans in the RK riots.

Rittenhouse had no business being there and comparing this to combat is idiocy, it’s idiocy with wings, actually.

 

[rjd970]

I'd wager that it is. Protecting yourself and community from aggressors is a good idea. I encourage everyone to carry for that purpose.

I carry specifically for that purpose. But being prepared for protection and going out of your way to insert yourself into a situation are two totally different things.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Funny they were there with Kyle and his group during the riots...guess it just slipped their mind much like their insurance claim figures.

I am not sure that video proves any of the things that Darth Crypto claims.

 

[ButchPlz]

You evidently have a hard time reading. I have said repeatedly, that if it were my business or house I would be out there armed and ready to defend it. I have no issue with the Koreans in the RK riots.

Rittenhouse had no business being there and comparing this to combat is idiocy, it’s idiocy with wings, actually.

Can you confirm that every Korean at those riots was defending their own business? Otherwise, you're in the same place- call them idiots. Stand firm in your convictions. I notice you also never addressed, say, the examples I gave of pre-revolution community members with arms (and no training) standing up to the British. Were they idiots?

Second, going back to a further point, you have never clarified what "training" is required for someone to meet your standard. Please define.

Third, give me a definition of "combat" just for fun.

 

[RikidyBones]

I carry specifically for that purpose. But being prepared for protection and going out of your way to insert yourself into a situation are two totally different things.

I hope if you have to defend your business, you are not alone vs a mob and your community steps up.

 

[ButchPlz]

I hope if you have to defend your business, you are not alone vs a mob and your community steps up.

He doesn't want nebulously defined "untrained" individuals around him.

 

[hndog609]

I carry specifically for that purpose. But being prepared for protection and going out of your way to insert yourself into a situation are two totally different things.

So if you carry for self defense and and were in fact at your business location would you by definition be there for the express purpose of "confrontation"? If you (or anyone) expanded that mindset beyond "if it's not my **** it's not my problem" to include more of the community at large does that change the definition of being confrontational?

I'm not even trying to give you grief, I understand your POV, but I am curious where you (and others) put the threshold for various justifications.

 

[rjd970]

Can you confirm that every Korean at those riots was defending their own business? Otherwise, you're in the same place- call them idiots. Stand firm in your convictions. I notice you also never addressed, say, the examples I gave of pre-revolution community members with arms (and no training) standing up to the British. Were they idiots?

Second, going back to a further point, you have never clarified what "training" is required for someone to meet your standard. Please define.

If there were Koreans there that went out of their way to be in that situation, yes they are idiots. I have no issue with business owners and associates protecting their business.

Stop and think for a second. You have compared this to Bosnia, Kosovo, and the American revolution to make your point. That is ridiculous.

 

[rjd970]

So if you carry for self defense and and were in fact at your business location would you by definition be there for the express purpose of "confrontation"? If you (or anyone) expanded that mindset beyond "if it's not my **** it's not my problem" to include more of the community at large does that change the definition of being confrontational?

I'm not even trying to give you grief, I understand your POV, but I am curious where you (and others) put the threshold for various justifications.

The problem is generally applying a philosophy to a specific situation. In this situation you have a teenage kid with no training in de-escalation, and I would assume no formal firearm training. Hell, he even fired random shots during the confrontation. What if he would have hit a shop owner defending his property or reporter? Would he be culpable then? Would he still be lauded as a civic minded community guy? Thank god no one innocent was hurt, right?

At the end of the day in this situation Rittenhouse would have been better off just staying home. Not even sure why that is debatable.

 

[RikidyBones]

If there were Koreans there that went out of their way to be in that situation, yes they are idiots. I have no issue with business owners and associates protecting their business.

Stop and think for a second. You have compared this to Bosnia, Kosovo, and the American revolution to make your point. That is ridiculous.

The absence of those idiots results in an unfair fight like this:



Again, I hope those "idiots" are there for you if you ever encounter a situation like that.

 

[ButchPlz]

If there were Koreans there that went out of their way to be in that situation, yes they are idiots. I have no issue with business owners and associates protecting their business.

Stop and think for a second. You have compared this to Bosnia, Kosovo, and the American revolution to make your point. That is ridiculous.

I have compared it to mob actions (in some cases) where people relied on untrained and lowly-trained teenagers and young people for protection. Especially in the case of the years before the American revolution, where no war was declared and individual rights were threatened and met by untrained, armed young men. Your ignorance is showing.

I ask you again. What is your bar for "training", and what is "combat"? You are cowering away yet again. Man up. Define them. Otherwise I'll be forced to assume you are:
1. Scoring someone based on rules you can't even define and don't understand; and
2. Relying on a government that I assume you don't trust to tell you who is and who is not suited for a situation because they bestow a uniform to those who they deem are suited for the situation.

 

[RikidyBones]

The problem is generally applying a philosophy to a specific situation. In this situation you have a teenage kid with no training in de-escalation, and I would assume no formal firearm training. Hell, he even fired random shots during the confrontation. What if he would have hit a shop owner defending his property or reporter? Would he be culpable then? Would he still be lauded as a civic minded community guy? Thank god no one innocent was hurt, right?

At the end of the day in this situation Rittenhouse would have been better off just staying home. Not even sure why that is debatable.

He never fired random shots. He fired at a guy that kicked him in the head and missed.

Also, your last statement applies to every single person on the streets of Kenosha.

 

[ButchPlz]

The problem is generally applying a philosophy to a specific situation. In this situation you have a teenage kid with no training in de-escalation, and I would assume no formal firearm training. Hell, he even fired random shots during the confrontation. What if he would have hit a shop owner defending his property or reporter? Would he be culpable then? Would he still be lauded as a civic minded community guy? Thank god no one innocent was hurt, right?

At the end of the day in this situation Rittenhouse would have been better off just staying home. Not even sure why that is debatable.

No de-escalation training, like many, many in law enforcement around the country. If that is your bar, you're calling yourself an idiot for relying on law enforcement.

Second, I've had no "formal" firearms training yet have shot guns since I was 10 and have passed all the safety tests needed for permitting. I had much better training from my father than most people going through classes. So essentially, you're making the same argument that people grossly in favor of the public school system make- someone has "teacher" or "instructor" as their profession and is thus uniquely and singularly qualified to "train".

 

[hndog609]

The problem is generally applying a philosophy to a specific situation. In this situation you have a teenage kid with no training in de-escalation, and I would assume no formal firearm training. Hell, he even fired random shots during the confrontation. What if he would have hit a shop owner defending his property or reporter? Would he be culpable then? Would he still be lauded as a civic minded community guy? Thank god no one innocent was hurt, right?

That didn't particularly address my questions but to address your post.

I'm not aware of any firing of "random" rounds. Rounds fired in self defense are definitionally not random. (I'm assuming you meant rounds fired that did not hit the intended target, of which I believe there were 2) Now having said that anyone (including you and me) firing any round, self defense or otherwise, can be held liable for damages in civil court. (some states have started to include certain laws that at least hinder civil liability in cases of clear cut self defense)

To your last question are you asserting that any action (let's remove Rittenhouse from this thought experiment) that results in unintended harm automatically negates original intent? (Meaning it is literally impossible to have ever been the "good guy" if the action results in something bad) I think this runs counter to the very premise of mens rea.

 

[VolnJC]

The absence of those idiots results in an unfair fight like this:



Again, I hope those "idiots" are there for you if you ever encounter a situation like that.

According to the smart people on this thread...we tell the police to stand down and us law abiding folks stay home till the protesters burn it out of their system

 

[rjd970]

I have compared it to mob actions (in some cases) where people relied on untrained and lowly-trained teenagers and young people for protection. Especially in the case of the years before the American revolution, where no war was declared and individual rights were threatened and met by untrained, armed young men. Your ignorance is showing.

I ask you again. What is your bar for "training", and what is "combat"? You are cowering away yet again. Man up. Define them. Otherwise I'll be forced to assume you are:
1. Scoring someone based on rules you can't even define and don't understand; and
2. Relying on a government that I assume you don't trust to tell you who is and who is not suited for a situation because they bestow a uniform to those who they deem are suited for the situation.

Look, you brought up the combat silliness with your ridiculous American revolution and Kosovo comparison. Military training is required for military combat. How else do you want me to say it? But this wasn’t combat, no matter how you try to compare it as such (Kosovo, revolution, etc).

1. I don’t even know what you are trying to say here.
2. If someone has gone through police training or security training, they are obviously more qualified than Rittenhouse. You disagree?

 

[rjd970]

That didn't particularly address my questions but to address your post.

I'm not aware of any firing of "random" rounds. Rounds fired in self defense are definitionally not random. (I'm assuming you meant rounds fired that did not hit the intended target, of which I believe there were 2) Now having said that anyone (including you and me) firing any round, self defense or otherwise, can be held liable for damages in civil court. (some states have started to include certain laws that at least hinder civil liability in cases of clear cut self defense)

To your last question are you asserting that any action (let's remove Rittenhouse from this thought experiment) that results in unintended harm automatically negates original intent? (Meaning it is literally impossible to have ever been the "good guy" if the action results in something bad) I think this runs counter to the very premise of mens rea.

This all underpins my original point, Rittenhouse should have just stayed home. On balance, more harm than good was probable here.

 

[Vol8188]

The problem is generally applying a philosophy to a specific situation. In this situation you have a teenage kid with no training in de-escalation, and I would assume no formal firearm training. Hell, he even fired random shots during the confrontation. What if he would have hit a shop owner defending his property or reporter? Would he be culpable then? Would he still be lauded as a civic minded community guy? Thank god no one innocent was hurt, right?

At the end of the day in this situation Rittenhouse would have been better off just staying home. Not even sure why that is debatable.

He fired no random shots. Idk where you got that from?

 

[VolnJC]

This all underpins my original point, Rittenhouse should have just stayed home. On balance, more harm than good was probable here.

I mean eventually they will run out of buildings to burn right?

 

[rjd970]

No de-escalation training, like many, many in law enforcement around the country. If that is your bar, you're calling yourself an idiot for relying on law enforcement.

Second, I've had no "formal" firearms training yet have shot guns since I was 10 and have passed all the safety tests needed for permitting. I had much better training from my father than most people going through classes. So essentially, you're making the same argument that people grossly in favor of the public school system make- someone has "teacher" or "instructor" as their profession and is thus uniquely and singularly qualified to "train".

Police are absolutely trained in de-escalation. Whether they are good at it is a different question.

You are desperately reaching for whatever “if” you can find here that helps. You’ve gone from Kosovo, to the American Revolution, to the mafia, and now your personal training. I’m half wondering if you are trolling at this point.

 

[RockyTop85]

You changed your initial question.

What are the individuals in question doing at a riot? If attendence is enough to damn Rittenhouses intent, it's enough to damn everyone else as well.

Interesting that attacking someone with a skateboard from behind is now considered subduing.

What were those individuals doing at a used car lot protesting ? Who were they looking for change from at a used car lot?

Sorry, I don’t remember what the question was before. I often type messages quickly and change them after the fact.

I haven’t seen anybody saying that attendance “damns” Kyle. I’ve seen people responding to that strawman and explicitly saying that it’s a mischaracterization. My understanding is they think that attendance was stupid, for everyone, but not criminal. I agree with that.

So, I don’t know why we would apply a standard to these guys that only exists because somebody tried to mischaracterize other people’s comments and make them seem facially absurd. Are you saying this facially absurd standard is the only way to justify your statement? That seems bad.

I don’t know why everything happened in that area for several nights in a row. I’m not familiar with Kenosha. Is it near where Blake was shot?

The testimony at trial, including from police and people who were defending the car lot, indicated that “mostly peaceful” was accurate initially, and that it became more like a riot as it got later and people who they suspected of being from out of town got there. The videos I remember showed protestors/rioters milling about and Kyle walking among them.

So, the evidence I’ve seen shows a mix of protestors, rioters, and gawkers in the area. I’m not saying the people who got shot were one or the other, like I said I legitimately don’t know what they were up to before chasing and trying to subdue Kyle after he shot Rosenbaum. It sounds like you don’t either.

So then are we just saying that the interaction with Kyle, however you want to characterize it, makes them bad?

 

[VolnJC]

He fired no random shots. Idk where you got that from?

His echo chamber...he was very selective..8 total shots none unprovoked..he could have killed drop kick felon but that guy made the smart decision and ran