Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#476
#476
C-south said:
I can conceal carry my gun legally to 30 something other states. If I go to one of those states for whatever reason and have to shoot someone legally to defend myself, my family, or someone else will the argument be “I shouldn’t have been there”?
Click to expand...
Nope. Moving goalpost
 
#477
#477
PlanetVolunteer said:
I'll have to go back and look, but somebody had shot a gun in the air near him (its at night) he thought they had shot at him. Can't quite remember what was going on right before that was happening. Heard the story from Elijah Schaffer or these guys from the Daily Caller who were there and saw everything. Obviously haven't heard the story in over a year now. But right before all of the Rittenhouse stuff they did talk about guys who lit a dumpster on fire and were pushing it towards a gas station as, Kyle and others went to address it.
Click to expand...
A freaking 17 year old boy. His parents are some real idiots
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#478
#478
PlanetVolunteer said:
I'll have to go back and look, but somebody had shot a gun in the air near him (its at night) he thought they had shot at him. Can't quite remember what was going on right before that was happening. Heard the story from Elijah Schaffer or these guys from the Daily Caller who were there and saw everything. Obviously haven't heard the story in over a year now. But right before all of the Rittenhouse stuff they did talk about guys who lit a dumpster on fire and were pushing it towards a gas station as, Kyle and others went to address it.
Click to expand...

I haven't really followed this, but I'm less inclined to be sympathetic to him after reading this. Seems like a bad idea to shoot at people based on an unconfirmed assumption that a shot in the dark was directed at him.
 
#479
#479
clarksvol00 said:
I haven't really followed this, but I'm less inclined to be sympathetic to him after reading this. Seems like a bad idea to shoot at people based on an unconfirmed assumption that a shot in the dark was directed at him.
Click to expand...

It seems a little more complicated than that. (Wiki isn't hard legal information obviously but for a summation it was at least convenient)

Kenosha unrest shooting - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#480
#480
clarksvol00 said:
I haven't really followed this, but I'm less inclined to be sympathetic to him after reading this. Seems like a bad idea to shoot at people based on an unconfirmed assumption that a shot in the dark was directed at him.
Click to expand...
If I recall he was being chased, threatened and before the 1st shot went off he fired in to the ground and the 1st guy kept coming...now if someone keeps approaching you after 1 shot (warning or not) then he is threaten your life..and you have a right to defend
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, CagleMtnVol, GroverCleveland and 3 others
#481
#481
whodeycin85 said:
If I recall he was being chased, threatened and before the 1st shot went off he fired in to the ground and the 1st guy kept coming...now if someone keeps approaching you after 1 shot (warning or not) then he is threaten your life..and you have a right to defend
Click to expand...
I think most people on here agree that his use of force was justified, given that he was assaulted several times and that there is no evidence that he was the aggressor in any of the situations. Most people also recognize that his possession of that weapon was illegal given his age. If this wasn’t such a politicized event I think most reasonable people would say convict him for illegal possession of a weapon and that’s it. He’s become an icon on both sides of the political spectrum which has distorted people’s ability to objectively evaluate his case. The local authorities are contributing to the problem by over prosecuting him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and USAFgolferVol
#482
#482
lukeneyland said:
I think most people on here agree that his use of force was justified, given that he was assaulted several times and that there is no evidence that he was the aggressor in any of the situations. Most people also recognize that his possession of that weapon was illegal given his age. If this wasn’t such a politicized event I think most reasonable people would say convict him for illegal possession of a weapon and that’s it. He’s become an icon on both sides of the political spectrum which has distorted people’s ability to objectively evaluate his case. The local authorities are contributing to the problem by over prosecuting him.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%.... i haven't look into the gun possession law.....i heard something about a hunting rifle and being under 18...but across state lines and such im not sure...bottom line he 100% responsible if he broke gun possession law...and 100% correct for defending himself...
 
  • Like
Reactions: lukeneyland
#485
#485
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#497
#497
clarksvol00 said:
I haven't really followed this, but I'm less inclined to be sympathetic to him after reading this. Seems like a bad idea to shoot at people based on an unconfirmed assumption that a shot in the dark was directed at him.
Click to expand...

It could be equally viewed the same the other way.
 
#500
#500
whodeycin85 said:
So you blame 1 guy who defended himself from attackers by saying he was strolling where he wasn't supposed to be..but protesters rioting and looting is ok, the same type of rioting a looting that killed innocent david dorn....???
Click to expand...
I've condemned the idiot rioters on many occasions. Is every issue an absolute, binary thought process? More people than not in this country condemn both Rittenhouse and the rioters. I am one of them
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top