Rittenhouse situation

GopherBlood666

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,215
Points
113
- Rittenhouse is from an Illinois border town 20 miles from Kenosha. Suburban Kenosha essentially. He worked in Kenosha. He did not drive hours to get to the riots. He got off work at his lifeguard job in Kenosha & went to the protests.

- Rittenhouse was studying to be an EMT & allegedly went to the riots to help people. There are confirmed reports of him attending to BLM protesters injuries on two occasions.

- New video shows Rittenhouse was fired on by BLM. He returned fire & hit the man shooting at him. That was the 1st incident.

- Then the BLM mob chased him down & when he tripped, the 1st BLM rioter tried to stomp on his head, while a 2nd ran up, punched him in the head & tried to get his AR-15 & a 3rd ran at him with a pistol in his hand.

- This case is an easy dismissal.
Woah, there are way too many objective facts in this post. For those asking about training to be an EMT, he was already working as a lifeguard as stated by CRG. It is safe to assume he already has CPR and basic first aid training. Would not be a stretch to think he would want to continue that education to become an EMT. He was 17 and probably should not have been there with a gun. However, he was attacked for trying to extinguish a burning dumpster being pushed towards a gas station. Someone else fired the first shot while he was being pursued by an aggressor. For anyone calling Rittenhouse a straight up murderer, how could he have handled it any different aside from just not being there or carrying a weapon for defense? He called the authorities and was trying to turn himself in when he was attacked the second time. The guy he shot in the bicep is quoted as telling his friend that he wishes he would not have hesitated and killed Kyle. So in a kill or be killed situation when you are not the instigator or aggressor (he was fleeing BOTH times he fired on someone), you should roll over and take it?
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
730
Points
113
It's not illegal to possess a firearm in Wisconsin at 17 y/o.
That was the story earlier. It appears, at least from what I've read recently, that the firearm-carrying charge might stick after all. No details, but I suspect that if you're 17 you actually have to be out in the woods hunting in order for that Wisconsin law (allowing a 17-year-old to possess a rifle) to apply. It's only a misdemeanor, though. Yet, you might expect the prosecutor to seek the max sentence on this misdemeanor.

However, the defense team seems to feel that they have a defense against that charge based on 2A and other Federal code. Don't know the details on that part, but I suspect their line of reasoning goes something like: "If ever there is a reason for 2A (and the other relevant Federal code) to apply, it would be in the situation in which known violent (and mostly comprised of felons) terrorists are chasing you with intent to kill or maim you. Therefore, 2A supercedes Wisconsin law in this case."

It's really unclear whether the kid can get a fair trial in Wisconsin.
 
Last edited:

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
730
Points
113
- Rittenhouse is from an Illinois border town 20 miles from Kenosha. Suburban Kenosha essentially. He worked in Kenosha. He did not drive hours to get to the riots. He got off work at his lifeguard job in Kenosha & went to the protests.

- Rittenhouse was studying to be an EMT & allegedly went to the riots to help people. There are confirmed reports of him attending to BLM protesters injuries on two occasions.

- New video shows Rittenhouse was fired on by BLM. He returned fire & hit the man shooting at him. That was the 1st incident.

- Then the BLM mob chased him down & when he tripped, the 1st BLM rioter tried to stomp on his head, while a 2nd ran up, punched him in the head & tried to get his AR-15 & a 3rd ran at him with a pistol in his hand.

- This case is an easy dismissal.
Woah, there are way too many objective facts in this post. For those asking about training to be an EMT, he was already working as a lifeguard as stated by CRG. It is safe to assume he already has CPR and basic first aid training. Would not be a stretch to think he would want to continue that education to become an EMT. He was 17 and probably should not have been there with a gun. However, he was attacked for trying to extinguish a burning dumpster being pushed towards a gas station. Someone else fired the first shot while he was being pursued by an aggressor. For anyone calling Rittenhouse a straight up murderer, how could he have handled it any different aside from just not being there or carrying a weapon for defense? He called the authorities and was trying to turn himself in when he was attacked the second time. The guy he shot in the bicep is quoted as telling his friend that he wishes he would not have hesitated and killed Kyle. So in a kill or be killed situation when you are not the instigator or aggressor (he was fleeing BOTH times he fired on someone), you should roll over and take it?
All good points.

> Rittenhouse was studying to be an EMT & allegedly went to the riots to help people.

> He got off work at his lifeguard job in Kenosha & went to the protests.

He did have his EMT kit on and he was helping injured people. It is reasonable to believe that he got some level of EMT training as a requirement in order to get the lifeguard job. I know that something is required, like maybe a Red Cross course of some type.

> Someone else fired the first shot while he was being pursued by an aggressor.

> The guy he shot in the bicep is quoted as telling his friend that he wishes he would not have hesitated and killed Kyle. So in a kill or be killed situation when you are not the instigator or aggressor (he was fleeing BOTH times he fired on someone), you should roll over and take it?

> New video shows Rittenhouse was fired on by BLM. He returned fire & hit the man shooting at him. That was the 1st incident.

Let me update/correct that slightly. First of all, he didn't hit the man shooting at him. It was others shooting at him (in the 1st incident) from the direction of the first victim, but that victim was not armed (as far as we know) and in any event, not shooting - but rather attacking Rittenhouse by hand (trying to grab the barrel of the gun - not such a good idea when you grab it from the business end).

From this new video compilation (as compared to the earlier videos from NYT and others) there is new evidence that the first shooting was also in self defense (it was already quite clear that the second pair of shootings were in self defense, since an entire mob of 20+ people were chasing him and attacking him). Previously (on the first shooting) it was thought that a BLMer shot one shot into the air. It is now known that one or more BLMers also fired 3 additional shots, but apparently not just into the air. It is quite likely that they shot in the direction of Rittenhouse, and the first of those shots came before Rittenhouse fired. It's not clear yet about the timing of the extra BLM shots relative to the 4 or so shots taken by Rittenhouse. One of those crowd shooters has now been identified (but not charged as far as anyone knows). It's pretty speculative at this point, but it appears that one of those BLM shots may have hit the victim in the back, and it might well be that that was the fatal bullet. In any event, it now appears that the victim was possibly hit both in the back by a BLM shooter and from the front by Kyle.

There was a large mob chasing Kyle at this time. The first victim was charging Rittenhouse and grabbed the barrel of his rifle in trying to take the rifle away (which, if he had succeeded, would have placed Rittenhouse in mortal danger since then the victim would have the opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse). In any event, the victim was obviously facing toward Rittenhouse, and the BLM shooter(s) faced toward the back of the victim, and Kyle swung around (most probably when he heard the shot(s) from that direction) and faced the victim just in time to take action. At that instant, Kyle had heard the shot(s) and saw the victim diving at him with hands immediately on the barrel. Based on the scenario of shots fired and immediate personal attack by the victim, Kyle actually was able to think quite fast, and made what was probably the best and only decision he could have selected, namely to fire at the victim (currently trying to wrestle the gun out of his hands).

One could claim that the victim was merely trying to grab the gun to disarm him, and wouldn't have used it. But who knows what would have happened if the victim acquired the gun. Based on past BLM/antifa behavior (and the fact that so many of them are felons), it was highly likely that they would have killed Kyle. So I think Kyle made the right decision in the light of the fact that shots had already been fired by other BLMers in the crowd. But one notable thing worth pointing out, is that the life of the first victim might have been saved if only that victim's fellow BLM rioters had not fired the first shot. Without hearing that first shot, Kyle quite possibly would not have fired at the first victim. That BLM shot escalated things from merely running away from 20+ rioters with intent to harm, to a life-and-death situation that called for self-defense action by Kyle.

One of the Rittenhouse bullets grazed the victim in the head, but caused no real damage. That wasn't the kill wound. I think another Rittenhouse bullet hit him in the groin, and that probably wasn't the kill wound either. The rest of those details (about Rittenhouse shots) are fuzzy at best, so I won't speculate. But it's quite possible that the shot in the back by the BLMer is what killed the victim.

That's probably the key point. Although details are certainly still fuzzy (especially until ballistics evidence is established), it now seems that the kill wound to the first victim most likely came from a BLM shooter who shot him in the back. Kyle and the first victim wore similar clothes, so it's even quite possible that the BLM shooter thought he was shooting Kyle. The wounds inflicted by Rittenhouse might not even have been life-threatening. And in any event, what triggered Kyle to fire was hearing the shot(s) fired by BLM rioters (presumably intended to kill Kyle).

Hopefully, the police and/or the doctor performing the victim's autopsy will find the bullets and so be able to identify which gun fired which shot from which direction. But don't hold your breath about the Wisconsin police/presecutor doing a good job on that, especially when they immediately charged Kyle with 1st degree murder without examining any of the video evidence. The whole thing is basically an episode of total incompetence by the Wisconsin authorities, given that they charged 1st degree murder for something that was clearly self defense.

So in summary, Kyle's legal team has a much better case, than was thought, on the first shooting. The second two were more clearly self defense, because these were direct attacks by the mob chasing him - especially in the case of the BLMer who drew a pistol. In that case (and it's very hard to see in the video but) apparently he initially raised his hands in mock surrender, and Kyle lowered his weapon. But then that victim went for his handgun and aimed it at Kyle but, well, he couldn't shoot his gun at Kyle by virtue of the fact that Kyle just shot a hole in his biceps. The third victim smashed Kyle in the head with the edge of a skateboard, and then charged him again, and paid the price via a .223 round in his chest.

> This case is an easy dismissal.

This case is very close to an easy call of self defense. Yet, the devil is in the details. Different people (including different jurors) might see it differently. I guess we'll see what happens in court. But as I said earlier, I'm not too hopeful that Kyle can obtain a fair trial in Wisconsin. Especially when the prosecutor screwed up big-time by calling a case of self-defense a 1st degree murder. There's a lot of face to be saved by the prosecutor and the various police that (did or did not) collect evidence. They might want to work diligently toward a conviction, just to cover up for their being total buffoons.

> However, he was attacked for trying to extinguish a burning dumpster being pushed towards a gas station.

Yes, he had a fire extinguisher in hand at the beginning of the sequnce in which he was attacked. He and his team extinguished the fire in the dumpster. The BLMers were pushing the burning dumpster toward the gas station. They clearly had no less of a goal than burning down the gas station, and most likely blowing up the gas pumps in the process. I've seen the BLMers use this tactic many times while watching the Portland videos. The dumpster is mobile if you get 2-3 people to push it around. They easily collect pieces of wood and other combustibles to throw in the dumpster, and do this in background areas where no cops are present. Then they wait til their target is undefended, and push the burning dumpster to the target. Kind of like a huge molotov cocktail on wheels. The team Kyle was in, most certainly saved a gas station from burning and probably exploding.

They recognized Kyle from seeing him earlier out in the crowds and providing first aid. Also, many of the BLMers undoubtedly noticed (and later recognized) him by virtue of his being a baby-faced kid toting an EMT kit and an assault rifle. They certainly recognized him as part of the team trying to put out the fires they were trying to start (in this case, the gas station). This pissed them off incredibly. Per another witness (not in the above video), once they recognized him and saw that he was isolated from his teammates, they immediately started chasing him, and were yelling at fellow BLMers to "get him." They were explicitly yelling to shoot him in the head. The term they used was to "cranium" him, which is street slang to shoot somebody in the head. Obviously, these wonderful BLM/antifa people have experience with such street slang, and carried the weapons to potentially carry it out. They chased him like a pack of wolves. He was most certainly under threat of death. He was most certainly justified in using his weapon in self defense.

Ironically, we now find out that he and his team were fully supportive of the goals of the Black Lives Matter "protesters." They were on the side of the protesters, but were just trying to stop the rioters (among the protesters) from burning down their town.

I do think that Kyle and his team definitely got in over their heads. I'm not sure (at that late phase of the riot) how (or why, if he had any choice in the matter) Kyle got himself separated from his team. I don't think that he fully realized that these BLM/antifa would-be murderers hunt like a pack of wolves. By the time he realized that he was the prey, he pretty much had no option left but to shoot in self defense.
 
Last edited:

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
26,297
Reaction score
7,374
Points
113
All good points.

> Rittenhouse was studying to be an EMT & allegedly went to the riots to help people.

> He got off work at his lifeguard job in Kenosha & went to the protests.

He did have his EMT kit on and he was helping injured people. It is reasonable to believe that he got some level of EMT training as a requirement in order to get the lifeguard job. I know that something is required, like maybe a Red Cross course of some type.

> Someone else fired the first shot while he was being pursued by an aggressor.

> The guy he shot in the bicep is quoted as telling his friend that he wishes he would not have hesitated and killed Kyle. So in a kill or be killed situation when you are not the instigator or aggressor (he was fleeing BOTH times he fired on someone), you should roll over and take it?

> New video shows Rittenhouse was fired on by BLM. He returned fire & hit the man shooting at him. That was the 1st incident.

Let me update/correct that slightly. First of all, he didn't hit the man shooting at him. It was others shooting at him (in the 1st incident) from the direction of the first victim, but that victim was not armed (as far as we know) and in any event, not shooting - but rather attacking Rittenhouse by hand (trying to grab the barrel of the gun - not such a good idea when you grab it from the business end).

From this new video (as compared to the earlier videos from NYT and others) there is new evidence that the first shooting was also in self defense (it was already quite clear that the second pair of shootings were in self defense, since an entire mob of 20+ people were chasing him and attacking him). Previously (on the first shooting) it was thought that a BLMer shot one shot into the air. It is now known that one or more BLMers fired a total of about 3-4 shots, and not just into the air. It is quite likely that they shot in the direction of Rittenhouse, and at least one of those shots came before Rittenhouse fired. It's not clear yet about the timing of the extra BLM shots relative to the 3 or so shots taken by Rittenhouse. One of those crowd shooters has now been identified (but not charged as far as anyone knows). It's pretty speculative at this point, but it appears that one of those BLM shots hit the victim in the back, and it might well be that that was the fatal bullet. In any event, it now appears that the victim was possibly hit both in the back by a BLM shooter and from the front by Kyle.

The victim was charging Rittenhouse and grabbed the barrel of his rifle in trying to take the rifle away (which, if he had succeeded, would have placed Rittenhouse in mortal danger since then the victim would have the opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse). In any event, the victim was obviously facing toward Rittenhouse, and the BLM shooter(s) faced toward the back of the victim, and Kyle swung around (most probably when he heard the shot(s) from that direction) and faced the victim just in time to take action. At that instant, Kyle had heard the shot(s) and saw the victim diving at him with hands immediatly on the barrel. Based on the scenario of shots fired and immediate personal attack by the victim, Kyle actually was able to think quite fast, and made what was probably the best and only decision he could have selected, namely to fire at the victim (currently trying to wrestle the gun out of his hands).

One could claim that the victim was merely trying to grab the gun, and wouldn't have used it. But who knows what would have happened if the victim acquired the gun. Based on past BLM/antifa behavior, it was highly likely that they would have killed Kyle. So I think Kyle made the right decision in the light of the fact that one to several shots had already been fired by other BLMers in the crowd.

One of the Rittenhouse bullets grazed the victim in the head, but caused no real damage. That wasn't the kill wound. I think another Rittenhouse bullet hit him in the groin, and that probably wasn't the kill wound either. The rest of those details (about Rittenhouse shots) are fuzzy at best, so I won't speculate. But it's quite possible that the shot in the back by the BLMer is what killed the victim.

Hopefully, the police and/or the doctor performing the victim's autopsy will find the bullets and so be able to identify which gun fired which shot from which direction. But don't hold your breath about the Wisconsin police/presecutor doing a good job on that, especially when they immediately charged Kyle with 1st degree murder without examining any of the video evidence. The whole thing is basically an episode of total incompetence by the Wisconsin authorities, given that they charged 1st degree murder for something that was clearly self defense.

So in summary, Kyle's legal team has a much better case than was thought on the first shooting. The second two were more clearly self defense, because these were direct attacks by the mob chasing him - especially in the case of the BLMer who drew a pistol. In that case (and it's very hard to see in the video but) apparently he initially raised his hands and Kyle lowered his weapon. But then that victim went for his gun and, well, he couldn't shoot his gun at Kyle by virtue of the fact that Kyle just shot a hole in his biceps.

This case is very close to an easy call of self defense. Yet, the devil is in the details. Different people (including different jurors) might see it differently. I guess we'll see what happens in court. But as I said earlier, I'm not too hopeful that Kyle can obtain a fair trial in Wisconsin. Especially when the prosecutor screwed up big-time by calling a case of self-defense a 1st degree murder. There's a lot of face to be saved by the prosecutor and the various police that (did or did not) collect evidence. That might want to work diligently toward a conviction, just to cover up for their being total buffoons.

> However, he was attacked for trying to extinguish a burning dumpster being pushed towards a gas station.

Yes, he had a fire extinguisher in hand at the beginning of the sequnce in which he was attacked. He and his team extinguished the fire in the dumpster. The BLMers were pushing the burning dumpster toward the gas station. They clearly had no less of a goal than burning down the gas station, and most likely blowing up the gas pumps in the process. I've seen the BLMers use this tactic many times while watching the Portland videos. The dumpster is mobile if you get 2-3 people to push it around. They easily collect pieces of wood and other combustibles to throw in the dumpster, and do this in background areas where no cops are present. Then they wait til their target is undefended, and push the burning dumpster to the target. Kind of like a huge molotov cocktail on wheels. The team Kyle was in, most certainly saved a gas station from burning and probably exploding.

They recognized Kyle from seeing him earlier out in the crowds and providing first aid. Also, many of the BLMers undoubtedly noticed (and later recognized) him by virtue of his being a baby-faced kid toting an EMT kit and an assault rifle. They certainly recognized him as part of the team trying to put out the fires they were trying to start (in this case, the gas station). This pissed them off incredibly. Per another witness (not in the above video), once they recognized him and saw that he was isolated from his teammates, they immediately started chasing him, and were yelling at fellow BLMers to "get him." They were explicitly yelling at fellow BLMers to bash him in the head (which they later tried to do with a skateboard). They chased him like a pack of wolves. He was most certainly under threat of death. He was most certainly justified in using his weapon in self defense.

Ironically, we now find out that he and his team were fully supportive of the goals of the Black Lives Matter "protesters." They were on the side of the protesters, but were just trying to stop the rioters (among the protesters) from burning down their town.

I do think that Kyle and his team definitely got in over their heads. I'm not sure (at that late phase of the riot) how (or why, if he had any choice in the matter) Kyle got himself separated from his team. I don't think that he fully realized that these BLM/antifa would-be murderers hunt like a pack of wolves. By the time he realized that he was the prey, he pretty much had no option left but to shoot in self defense.

HAHAHAHA!!! Did INFOWARS write this up for their followers?

 



Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
6,017
Reaction score
3,718
Points
113
It's not illegal to possess a firearm in Wisconsin at 17 y/o.

Don't think so unless he was planning on doing some night hunting. From a WI paper (I think I'll take that over you semi-chohrent ramblings) -


Could the suspect carry the rifle legally?
Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

Just because a lawyer believes a law applies or justifies a certain action, doesn't mean it does (is the actual correct interpretation of the law).

Ah the details and nuance - that's where the meat actually lies.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
6,017
Reaction score
3,718
Points
113
- Rittenhouse is from an Illinois border town 20 miles from Kenosha. Suburban Kenosha essentially. He worked in Kenosha. He did not drive hours to get to the riots. He got off work at his lifeguard job in Kenosha & went to the protests.

- Rittenhouse was studying to be an EMT & allegedly went to the riots to help people. There are confirmed reports of him attending to BLM protesters injuries on two occasions.

- New video shows Rittenhouse was fired on by BLM. He returned fire & hit the man shooting at him. That was the 1st incident.

- Then the BLM mob chased him down & when he tripped, the 1st BLM rioter tried to stomp on his head, while a 2nd ran up, punched him in the head & tried to get his AR-15 & a 3rd ran at him with a pistol in his hand.

- This case is an easy dismissal.

Dr. Gorka,

Welcome back! Love those new supplement ADs on Fox, where you now correctly identify yourself as having a PHD in social science (the mind thereof) instead of implying you are an actual medical DR - that $%%% FDA (Gorka was sued by the FDA for pretending he was an actual medical DR) - don't worry Dumbo Donald will eliminate that in his third term - Despot for Life Baby -

So, since I don't have time to fact check all of the above "truths", why don't you supply some links to back up you suppositions. I did fact check your apparently incorrect other post that he was legally carrying his AR-15.

Here you need a big one growly bear -

1600949405786.png
 
Last edited:


WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
356
Points
83
Who produced this propaganda?
And it is propaganda.

It is a tragic story for all involved. What compels a 17 year old to arm himself, travel across state lines, attempt to protect a community that isn’t his, and end up killing people?
 



WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
356
Points
83
I don’t disagree. He was in over his head.

But should he be charged with murder?

Oddly, the kid with no criminal history attacked by guys who have significant criminal histories is charged and they are not.
Unless proof is found that he was there to kill someone, manslaughter charges seem more appropriate.
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
356
Points
83
If you're not in law enforcement and you have not been deputized by law enforcement, you are a vigilante with a gun. The kid was over 18, making him an adult with adult responsibilities. His ignorance of the law is no excuse for leniency by the law.
Our court system should legally punish him as the law requires.
Thank you for the info. I thought he was 17. Maybe that was from initial reports and I missed the correction.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,306
Reaction score
3,592
Points
113
Who produced this propaganda?
And it is propaganda.

It is a tragic story for all involved. What compels a 17 year old to arm himself, travel across state lines, attempt to protect a community that isn’t his, and end up killing people?
I already posted that his lawyer produced it. I said it was A narrative. The media’s narrative is A narrative.

He has been trained as an EMT. I don’t think that means much except preliminary treatment. Breonna Taylor was an EMT and a hero b/c of it.

Anyway, he was there to support the community, not “protect it” according to his comments before the shooting. That’s hard to argue when he was recorded cleaning walls of graffiti and offering medical assistance to protesters. He said he was carrying a gun for protection.

Most of the arrested protesters came from outside of the community, so why shouldn’t someone supporting the community do so? His home is literally a 15-20 drive from Kenosha.
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
356
Points
83
My takeaway is this is an example of what will happen if the right starts behaving like the left. Fortunately, so far the right has remained about a million times more civil than the left. For the country's sake, hopefully the right's civility continues.
The right has not been “million times more civil than the left.”

First, the violence has come from a small number of people from both the far left and right. Most Americans are moderate and measured in their responses.
The moderate left has had more protestors than the moderate right, and protestors both sides have been peaceful.

However, it’s the far right that has more activists than the far left.

The far right has shown up armed, in motorized caravans and have antagonized the moderate left protestors. And they have vandalized too.

The far left has had fewer people, for the most part been unarmed (that appears to be changing a bit), but have been responsible for much of the vandalism.

Vandals and vigilantes should be prosecuted. There is no room for either in our country.
 



saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,209
Reaction score
4,782
Points
113

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,209
Reaction score
4,782
Points
113
The EMT thing keeps coming up, because that would give him justification for being there. He has a purpose, special training, etc. Unless it can be show otherwise, he's probably a kid with a big heart and a strong desire to help. But his fire extinguisher, rifle, and first aid kit do not make him a fireman, police officer or an EMT. If he had training in one of those things, he would have been of better service to his cause. Or, maybe sticking to one of them.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
1,821
Points
113
The right has not been “million times more civil than the left.”

First, the violence has come from a small number of people from both the far left and right. Most Americans are moderate and measured in their responses.
The moderate left has had more protestors than the moderate right, and protestors both sides have been peaceful.

However, it’s the far right that has more activists than the far left.

The far right has shown up armed, in motorized caravans and have antagonized the moderate left protestors. And they have vandalized too.

The far left has had fewer people, for the most part been unarmed (that appears to be changing a bit), but have been responsible for much of the vandalism.

Vandals and vigilantes should be prosecuted. There is no room for either in our country.

Million times is about right. The violence and mayhem in our cities is left. The harrassing public lead leaders in front of their houses is left.
How many of those screaming at and throwing things at police are going to vote trump? Precious few. Million times as uncivil sounds about right. Thankfully the right is maintaining civility.

Equally as aggredious is the media's unwillingness to call for an end to the anarchy.

Dems control theses citues so could make police changes whenever they wanted so spare me that left is concerned about black lives. They are concerned about politics and using black people to maintain power.

What would you say if this summer's anarchy was due to pro lifers? Would you say there is an equal amount of fault if similar rioting was done by pro lifers?
 
Last edited:

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,158
Reaction score
4,885
Points
113
The EMT thing keeps coming up, because that would give him justification for being there. He has a purpose, special training, etc. Unless it can be show otherwise, he's probably a kid with a big heart and a strong desire to help. But his fire extinguisher, rifle, and first aid kit do not make him a fireman, police officer or an EMT. If he had training in one of those things, he would have been of better service to his cause. Or, maybe sticking to one of them.

I always see EMTs carrying AR15s, standard....
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
10,461
Reaction score
1,756
Points
113
Thank you for the info. I thought he was 17. Maybe that was from initial reports and I missed the correction.
You may be correct. The State could still charge as an adult, or refer to Juvy court, in which case he could be incarcerated until he was 21, if he was found guilty, and then his records would be expunged.
My guess is they would try him as an adult in this situation.
 



WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
356
Points
83
- Rittenhouse is from an Illinois border town 20 miles from Kenosha. Suburban Kenosha essentially. He worked in Kenosha. He did not drive hours to get to the riots. He got off work at his lifeguard job in Kenosha & went to the protests.

- Rittenhouse was studying to be an EMT & allegedly went to the riots to help people. There are confirmed reports of him attending to BLM protesters injuries on two occasions.

- New video shows Rittenhouse was fired on by BLM. He returned fire & hit the man shooting at him. That was the 1st incident.

- Then the BLM mob chased him down & when he tripped, the 1st BLM rioter tried to stomp on his head, while a 2nd ran up, punched him in the head & tried to get his AR-15 & a 3rd ran at him with a pistol in his hand.

- This case is an easy dismissal.
I already posted that his lawyer produced it. I said it was A narrative. The media’s narrative is A narrative.

He has been trained as an EMT. I don’t think that means much except preliminary treatment. Breonna Taylor was an EMT and a hero b/c of it.

Anyway, he was there to support the community, not “protect it” according to his comments before the shooting. That’s hard to argue when he was recorded cleaning walls of graffiti and offering medical assistance to protesters. He said he was carrying a gun for protection.

Most of the arrested protesters came from outside of the community, so why shouldn’t someone supporting the community do so? His home is literally a 15-20 drive from Kenosha.
Thank you for letting me know the lawyer produced it.

There is nothing wrong with supporting a community or protecting it. The tragedy is he felt compelled and thought it was okay to arm himself, and that goes for anyone showing up with weapons. Unless the police are asking for help, it just adds to the confusion and makes the situation more dangerous when armed civilians show up to 'help.'
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
356
Points
83
Million times is about right. The violence and mayhem in our cities is left. The harrassing public lead leaders in front of their houses is left.
How many of those screaming at and throwing things at police are going to vote trump? Precious few. Million times as uncivil sounds about right. Thankfully the right is maintaining civility.

Equally as aggredious is the media's unwillingness to call for an end to the anarchy.

Dems control theses citues so could make police changes whenever they wanted so spare me that left is concerned about black lives. They are concerned about politics and using black people to maintain power.

What would you say if this summer's anarchy was due to pro lifers? Would you say there is an equal amount of fault if similar rioting was done by pro lifers?
I guess you don't know how much a million is!

Everyone has a right to protest, but they don't have a right to violence or harrassment. However, it's not the peaceful protestors that are to blame. I firmly believe that the violence attributed to the left is moslty from opportunists who don't care about the politics, but only about taking advantage of the situation.

You seem to only see the left as the violent ones, when I see anarchists on the far left and the supremists on the right as equally violent. And I see the peaceful protestors on both sides as law abiding citizens demonstrating their right to free speech.

The media calling for an end to the anarchy just isn't going to happen anymore than it is. It really is up to the governments to develop plans to handle this in a way that doesn't make things worse.

Not one city or state has a developed a strategy for dealing with protestors that don't have a permit, nor for those that riot. It's easy to say use extreme force, but that only makes things worse and can turn a peaceful demonstration into a riot. I also lay blame on the organizers of the protests and demonstrations. They should always obtain a permit and disperse before dark. That would go a long way to help the local governments maintain order.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
730
Points
113
Who produced this propaganda?
And it is propaganda.

It is a tragic story for all involved. What compels a 17 year old to arm himself, travel across state lines, attempt to protect a community that isn’t his, and end up killing people?
> Who produced this propaganda?

As stated several times, this compilation of video evidence was put together essentially by his legal team, or at least some sort of Kyle-anti-defamation team that is putting the facts out there to try to counteract the millions of lies told about the situation involving Kyle in Kenosha.

One may call it propaganda if one wishes, but everything in this set of videos is factual, as opposed to the lies told by the leftist mainstream media (and supported by many leftists on GH OTB since those lies prop up their misinformed memes). And also, none of these facts that support the conclusion that this was self defense, were taken into account by the Wisconsin DA that filed 1st degree murder charges before even looking at a fraction of the evidence. The problem is that there are no doubt additional pertinent facts that are as yet unknown, so we should have a nuanced interpretation of the events so as to allow for what we do not yet know. But one thing is clear: everything in the videos was a factual recording of the events, and only the accompanying narrative was particularly aligned toward supporting the claims of the Rittenhouse legal defense team.

> ... travel across state lines ...

> ... a community that isn’t his ...

As noted by others, he lived only about a 15-minute drive away. This is analogous to someone living in Hudson, WI traveling down I-94 across state lines to an event in St. Paul. If perhaps the kid went to a private school, then that school might well be over the border in Wisconsin instead of Illinois. The school on which they tried to scrape off graffiti, was probably a school that some of his friends went to. It might have been the nearest big school. He and his friends might have regularly gone to football games there. It was his community in the sense that he lived in a small suburb of that community (which coincidentally was over the border into Illinois).

> What compels a 17 year old to arm himself ... attempt to protect [his] community ... and end up killing people?

The cause is two-fold.

First, he did have an interest in police and policing. He had a fund-raiser for police on his 16th birthday. It's fairly obvious that he might have had career ambitions in the area of police work. The actual police weren't doing their jobs adequately. The Wisconsin governor didn't bring in sufficient national guard, nor soon enough. [A mistake of the same caliber as the mistake Walz made.] Some acquaintances wanted to protect their mutual community, and so obviously he was in, as that cause aligned perfectly with his morals and career ambitions. As a minor aside, he (at least thought he) knew a little bit about first aid, so he grabbed his EMT bag and put it to good use. That explains the "protect [his] community" part.

Second, the "end up killing people" part is a bit more complicated. To at least partially understand that part, you have to both know all the video facts presented in the video compilation starting this thread, and be able to make an educated guess about the remaining facts not explicitly covered by those videos - all in light of the known facts about the most radicalized wings of BLM + antifa.

The above is stated in general terms. To get down to the actual specifics of the events, the key fact is that those BLM + antifa terrorists present at that event had cornered Kyle Rittenhouse (who they now vehemently hated because he was one of several that stopped them from blowing up a gas station) away from his group of peers, and were intent on murdering him, and also had a sufficient number of handguns among them to do so. They took about a dozen or more shots at him but missed. Kyle absolutely had no option but to shoot in self defense. Although the facts are fuzzy enough to allow slight differences in interpretation of the facts, it is undoubtedly true that no just court of law would convict him of any more than manslaughter (or possibly dismiss the charges) [other than the misdemeanor gun charge, which may or may not stick]. The key question is whether he will obtain a just trial in a just court of law, or whether he will (instead) be effectively lynched by the public - just to prevent further mayhem and destruction in Kenosha.

This was a wild-wild west situation in which the leadership of Wisconsin failed as miserably as Walz/Frey failed in Minnesota, and the result was perhaps even more tragic (since I don't believe there were any initial fatalities in Minnesota - the 40+ George Floyd deaths all happened in the following four months). Kyle got forced into a self-defense life-or-death shootout with a bunch of BLM + antifa would-be murderers, and Kyle had the faster draw and more accurate shot.

It's that simple. The ultimate cause of these tragedies in Kenosha thus lies mostly on the terrorist BLM + antifa intent on burning Kenosha down, with partial liability landing on Wisconsin politicians.

Of course, the leftists would argue, "If only do-gooders like Kyle would just stand down and let us burn down their community unchallenged, then we could have avoided this tragedy." I would counter with, "If only the terrorists had just stayed at home (in Portland and Seattle and Minneapolis and other places) and not tried to burn down Kenosha, then we could have avoided this tragedy."

If that last premise had prevailed (i.e., the terrorists had stayed home and not tried to burn down Kenosha), then there would have been no need for community members to try to protect their community and Kyle and his friends would not have been there, and there would not have been any terrorists there to get pissed off that the locals were interfering with their fun of burning down Kenosha, and so there wouldn't have been anyone there trying to kill Kyle because he was one of the ones ruining their fun, and Kyle would not have (even been there or) needed to return fire in self defense, and two deaths plus a rather severe injury wouldn't have happened.

Buy where is the rage at these terrorists who caused two deaths plus a rather severe injury?

I, for one, am enraged at them. If I could have my druthers, I'd for-sure prefer that Kyle had stayed home and left the job to the professionals like the police and the national guard. But given that unfortunately that didn't happen, I am extremely pissed off at these terrorists who caused two deaths plus a rather severe injury. Not to mention the other 40+ deaths that the terrorist BLM + antifa are directly or indirectly responsible for.
 
Last edited:

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
730
Points
113
I always see EMTs carrying AR15s, standard....
Standard when armed BLM + antifa are running around doing crazy things, like possibly trying to kill you. Like Kyle said, "That's why I have my rifle, cuz I have to protect myself, obviously." Obviously indeed, he wasn't stupid in that respect. He was stupid in the sense that he just should have stayed home and left it to the miniscule few professionals that the state of Wisconsin had allowed at the scene.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
1,821
Points
113
I guess you don't know how much a million is!

Everyone has a right to protest, but they don't have a right to violence or harrassment. However, it's not the peaceful protestors that are to blame. I firmly believe that the violence attributed to the left is moslty from opportunists who don't care about the politics, but only about taking advantage of the situation.

You seem to only see the left as the violent ones, when I see anarchists on the far left and the supremists on the right as equally violent. And I see the peaceful protestors on both sides as law abiding citizens demonstrating their right to free speech.

The media calling for an end to the anarchy just isn't going to happen anymore than it is. It really is up to the governments to develop plans to handle this in a way that doesn't make things worse.

Not one city or state has a developed a strategy for dealing with protestors that don't have a permit, nor for those that riot. It's easy to say use extreme force, but that only makes things worse and can turn a peaceful demonstration into a riot. I also lay blame on the organizers of the protests and demonstrations. They should always obtain a permit and disperse before dark. That would go a long way to help the local governments maintain order.

Hopefully people believe what they themselves see as they look at this anarchy. If so, should be beneficial to trump's relection chances.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,335
Reaction score
698
Points
113
How long have you been away from the board? CRG has gone from somewhat to fully deranged over the past year or two.

Is tinfoil poisoning a thing?
I was gone for 3 months. Had a nice summer vacation. Not a lot changed I see. I guess I didn't expect anything to.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
58,063
Reaction score
13,767
Points
113
Million times is about right. The violence and mayhem in our cities is left. The harrassing public lead leaders in front of their houses is left.
How many of those screaming at and throwing things at police are going to vote trump? Precious few. Million times as uncivil sounds about right. Thankfully the right is maintaining civility.

Equally as aggredious is the media's unwillingness to call for an end to the anarchy.

Dems control theses citues so could make police changes whenever they wanted so spare me that left is concerned about black lives. They are concerned about politics and using black people to maintain power.

What would you say if this summer's anarchy was due to pro lifers? Would you say there is an equal amount of fault if similar rioting was done by pro lifers?
Someone saying X "million times better" than Y is almost always a fool.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,158
Reaction score
4,885
Points
113
Million times is about right. The violence and mayhem in our cities is left. The harrassing public lead leaders in front of their houses is left.
How many of those screaming at and throwing things at police are going to vote trump? Precious few. Million times as uncivil sounds about right. Thankfully the right is maintaining civility.

Equally as aggredious is the media's unwillingness to call for an end to the anarchy.

Dems control theses citues so could make police changes whenever they wanted so spare me that left is concerned about black lives. They are concerned about politics and using black people to maintain power.

What would you say if this summer's anarchy was due to pro lifers? Would you say there is an equal amount of fault if similar rioting was done by pro lifers?


Watch this video of extremely civil right wingers, so civil, the best at being civil. And they are proud to post videos doing it, even more civil.

 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
1,821
Points
113
Watch this video of extremely civil right wingers, so civil, the best at being civil. And they are proud to post videos doing it, even more civil.


You cant possibly be trying to draw an equivalence between this and the anarchy of this summer. Over 30 dead and hundreds of million in damage by the left.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,158
Reaction score
4,885
Points
113
You cant possibly be trying to draw an equivalence between this and the anarchy of this summer. Over 30 dead and hundreds of million in damage by the left.

Oh yes, they are contributing to a climate of civility, my bad....
 




Top Bottom