Rittenhouse situation



Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,134
Reaction score
4,275
Points
113
Say he's 21 then. In terms of how we condone use of deadly force, is it good policy to encourage untrained, armed people to travel to areas of civil unrest to play cop? I mean, if it goes wrong, the guy with the gun can just shoot people! This wasn't a guy protecting his neighborhood, he chose to go the trouble.
Mind you, most of the damage done in my neighborhood was done by suburban kids there for the lulz, lighting fires and such, so maybe we should encourage some teenagers from Somerset to pop them between the eyes.
Yes, deadly force is morally justified in defense of person and property.
The people clearly in the wrong were the rioters. They chose to go to trouble too. They “traveled” (I know AR traveling 15 minutes so disturbs you) there to destroy the property of innocent people.
one group there for defense, one group there to destroy and riot. You want to give special rights to the latter. No thanks. I’ll continue to grant basic rights to the former.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,209
Reaction score
4,782
Points
113
Yes, deadly force is morally justified in defense of person and property.
The people clearly in the wrong were the rioters. They chose to go to trouble too. They “traveled” (I know AR traveling 15 minutes so disturbs you) there to destroy the property of innocent people.
one group there for defense, one group there to destroy and riot. You want to give special rights to the latter. No thanks. I’ll continue to grant basic rights to the former.
Show me where I said anything remotely like your penultimate sentence.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,162
Reaction score
4,885
Points
113
You don’t need to know the ages of those involved to determine right and wrong. Ive seen nothing to indicate AR was there for any reason but to act in defense of other people and property. Age 10 or 50, that’s a motive I have no problem with.
The rioters were there to destroy property. Age 10 or 50, that’s a motive I always have an issue with.
So before the shooting, rioters morally in the wrong, AR in the right. I’m guessing you feel that because the rioters CAUSE was just in your eyes, opposing them with any kind of force is wrong.
He wasn't protecting shit.
 


Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
6,018
Reaction score
3,718
Points
113
Not invited? Weren’t business owners asking for help?
Not protecting his own property you mean? By what standard are you judging his skill to be in a lethal situation? He was more in control than many of the OIS I’ve seen in the past year.
I’ve read he was eligible to carry that gun by state law.
if you are taking the position that parents shouldn’t allow their 17 year olds to carry weapons at riots, I think that’s a fine position to hold and I certainly wouldn’t let my kid do it. It’s irrelevant to the question of whether his actions themselves were wrong and constitute a crime.
He’s only eligible to carry if he’s going hunting in WI as a minor. I looked up the specific state statue (see post #61) when this happened and didn’t read some article about someone misquoting it.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
6,018
Reaction score
3,718
Points
113
Hence why @Goldteam and then the second account he created (the one boasting about getting out of the market and moving to Portugal, because the market was going to tank when Biden took over) were banned.
The Portugal was funny as the "jetsetter!"

The buy in to move to Portugal is 350K Euros and is a five year process to attain citizenship.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
6,018
Reaction score
3,718
Points
113
Yes, deadly force is morally justified in defense of person and property.
Why is this theorem valid? Because you decreed it?
Last I checked - A court of law deals with legal justifications🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The people clearly in the wrong were the rioters. They chose to go to trouble too. They “traveled” (I know AR traveling 15 minutes so disturbs you) there to destroy the property of innocent people.
one group there for defense, one group there to destroy and riot. You want to give special rights to the latter. No thanks. I’ll continue to grant basic rights to the former.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,134
Reaction score
4,275
Points
113
Show me where I said anything remotely like your penultimate sentence.
The basic gist of your point is that AR didn’t have a right to be there. They did. You put special emphasis on the traveling, not being invited, etc. yet you don’t apply those same rules to the rioters.
 



stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
26,297
Reaction score
7,374
Points
113
You should just delete this post. Or we should frame it.

What? The video of him being chased and shooting two MORE people was after he had already shot and killed one. Not sure how this isn't a fact. Maybe in imaginary deuce land where you make $400/hr to post right wing trash on the OTB all day everyday.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,209
Reaction score
4,782
Points
113
The basic gist of your point is that AR didn’t have a right to be there. They did. You put special emphasis on the traveling, not being invited, etc. yet you don’t apply those same rules to the rioters.
People who destroy property suck, especially people who travel to burn property. As I have pointed out, I have first hand experience with the latter. The remedy for this is not an armed version of Scooby Doo with teenagers roaming the country to solve crimes on spec.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
26,297
Reaction score
7,374
Points
113
Yes, deadly force is morally justified in defense of person and property.
The people clearly in the wrong were the rioters. They chose to go to trouble too. They “traveled” (I know AR traveling 15 minutes so disturbs you) there to destroy the property of innocent people.
one group there for defense, one group there to destroy and riot. You want to give special rights to the latter. No thanks. I’ll continue to grant basic rights to the former.

Nobody killed anyone in the four days of protests except for Rittenhouse. The guy who traveled to Kenosha with an AR to play cowboy.

The rest of us can figure it out. Why can't you....shill?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,134
Reaction score
4,275
Points
113
Why is this theorem valid? Because you decreed it?
Last I checked - A court of law deals with legal justifications🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If I meant legally justified I would have said so. I said morally justified. And it’s the bedrock principle of the country you live in. Now in Commie countries you are absolutely right.
 



stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
26,297
Reaction score
7,374
Points
113
He wasn't protecting shit.

I believe he had left the lot that he was "protecting" to go to a different place. That's where these confrontations began. Kind of throws the "he was defending a car lot" idea out the window when he started patrolling on foot.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
18,856
Reaction score
2,644
Points
113
If I meant legally justified I would have said so. I said morally justified. And it’s the bedrock principle of the country you live in. Now in Commie countries you are absolutely right.
20 to go. Make it a doozy. Something maybe about private continents?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,134
Reaction score
4,275
Points
113
People who destroy property suck, especially people who travel to burn property. As I have pointed out, I have first hand experience with the latter. The remedy for this is not an armed version of Scooby Doo with teenagers roaming the country to solve crimes on spec.
What’s the remedy? I totally disagree. It is absolutely up to citizens to defend themselves. If all riots resulted in armed defense you don’t think that would stop them?
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
6,018
Reaction score
3,718
Points
113
If I meant legally justified I would have said so. I said morally justified. And it’s the bedrock principle of the country you live in. Now in Commie countries you are absolutely right.
U aren’t tried in a moral court dumbo 🙄I am an American and believes in due process, law and the judiciary.

u sound like a liberal with the morality argument and of course it is your simple Simon opinion only, as there is no actual philosophical argument u can make - intellectual fraud. I asked for one and u couldn’t provide it -quit wasting my time u man child.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,134
Reaction score
4,275
Points
113
What? The video of him being chased and shooting two MORE people was after he had already shot and killed one. Not sure how this isn't a fact. Maybe in imaginary deuce land where you make $400/hr to post right wing trash on the OTB all day everyday.
We don’t know all the circumstances of the first shooting. yet you seem sure the first was cold blooded murder, and you use that incident to paint the other two. Yes you have the facts in terms of order correct. But it’s just as if not more likely that the circumstances of all 3 are the same. Rioters thought KR was an easy mark, f’d around, found out.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,209
Reaction score
4,782
Points
113
What’s the remedy? I totally disagree. It is absolutely up to citizens to defend themselves. If all riots resulted in armed defense you don’t think that would stop them?
Everybody assumes that the rioters will remain unarmed and the good guys will be the only ones armed.
Citizens are already able to defend themselves, and their property. It's the "let's drive around and look for property to defend" that seems to be outside the scope of a private citizen's use of deadly force.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
26,297
Reaction score
7,374
Points
113
What’s the remedy? I totally disagree. It is absolutely up to citizens to defend themselves. If all riots resulted in armed defense you don’t think that would stop them?

Citizens can defend themselves and their property. Wisconsin has a castle doctrine.....allowing people a heightened amount of protection in the case that deadly force is used on their property.

Rittenhouse doesn't have that defense because he wasn't asked to be there and was patrolling the streets. He put himself and others in danger just by being there with his AR. So again....he wasn't defending anything. He was making the situation worse and more deadly. And once you start killing people.....good luck. You don't get the benefit of the doubt.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,134
Reaction score
4,275
Points
113
Everybody assumes that the rioters will remain unarmed and the good guys will be the only ones armed.
Citizens are already able to defend themselves, and their property. It's the "let's drive around and look for property to defend" that seems to be outside the scope of a private citizen's use of deadly force.
The rioters were armed in this case. Defenseless targets are much more enticing. If citizens arm up and defend their property with force, it will end. And one business owner can’t defend his entire city block, they’ll need help. It’s absolutely necessary for citizens to band together.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
26,297
Reaction score
7,374
Points
113
We don’t know all the circumstances of the first shooting. yet you seem sure the first was cold blooded murder, and you use that incident to paint the other two. Yes you have the facts in terms of order correct. But it’s just as if not more likely that the circumstances of all 3 are the same. Rioters thought KR was an easy mark, f’d around, found out.

They thought he was "an easy mark"? He was out patrolling the streets carrying an AR! He was a danger to himself and everyone around him. Turns out that he was also horribly unprepared and was quick to pull the trigger against unarmed people.

Sorry. Play stupid games.....win stupid prizes. He wanted to play vigilante cop and it ended up in two deaths. Prize not yet awarded.....but I'd guess ten years at the very least.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,134
Reaction score
4,275
Points
113
Nobody killed anyone in the four days of protests except for Rittenhouse. The guy who traveled to Kenosha with an AR to play cowboy.

The rest of us can figure it out. Why can't you....shill?
I don’t feel sorry for the LARPER rioters who attacked a kid with a rifle and got shot. Other things that happened or didn’t happen have no bearing on that simple dynamic.
my only read of your position is that you don’t want the LARPER/antifa/BLM opposed with force. I do.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,134
Reaction score
4,275
Points
113
They thought he was "an easy mark"? He was out patrolling the streets carrying an AR! He was a danger to himself and everyone around him. Turns out that he was also horribly unprepared and was quick to pull the trigger against unarmed people.

Sorry. Play stupid games.....win stupid prizes. He wanted to play vigilante cop and it ended up in two deaths. Prize not yet awarded.....but I'd guess ten years at the very least.
One victim chased him with a gun, another was swinging a skateboard at his head. If you think you might get shot, you probably wouldn’t do that. KR was very prepared. He tried to retreat. They chased him. He was right to fear for his life. He shot only those who were attacking him.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,134
Reaction score
4,275
Points
113
Citizens can defend themselves and their property. Wisconsin has a castle doctrine.....allowing people a heightened amount of protection in the case that deadly force is used on their property.

Rittenhouse doesn't have that defense because he wasn't asked to be there and was patrolling the streets. He put himself and others in danger just by being there with his AR. So again....he wasn't defending anything. He was making the situation worse and more deadly. And once you start killing people.....good luck. You don't get the benefit of the doubt.
The rioters weren’t asked to be there. They were burning buildings down. They were in the wrong. They put everyone in danger. They created the situation. And yet, had they not attacked him, they’d still be alive. No one to blame but themselves.
 


saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,209
Reaction score
4,782
Points
113
One victim chased him with a gun, another was swinging a skateboard at his head. If you think you might get shot, you probably wouldn’t do that. KR was very prepared. He tried to retreat. They chased him. He was right to fear for his life. He shot only those who were attacking him.
Serious question--Did the mob attack any other people in this fashion, or just Kyle?
 


stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
26,297
Reaction score
7,374
Points
113
I don’t feel sorry for the LARPER rioters who attacked a kid with a rifle and got shot. Other things that happened or didn’t happen have no bearing on that simple dynamic.
my only read of your position is that you don’t want the LARPER/antifa/BLM opposed with force. I do.

I don't feel bad for Rosenberg (or whatever his name is) or the other guys who got shot either. Sounds like they were shitheads. But that doesn't mean that Rittenhouse should be let off with a slap on the wrist. Going to that situation with a loaded AR and no authority whatsoever put everyone in danger. Seems like he was trying to play police and people took exception to it. Rittenhouse had an itchy trigger finger and was quick to shoot.

Tough break for him if his intentions were good. But it sure seems like he wanted to play cowboy and ended up making a big mistake. That shouldn't get rewarded.

One victim chased him with a gun, another was swinging a skateboard at his head. If you think you might get shot, you probably wouldn’t do that. KR was very prepared. He tried to retreat. They chased him. He was right to fear for his life. He shot only those who were attacking him.

The people chasing him were doing so because he was walking around with an AR and shot someone to death. What world do you live in?

The rioters weren’t asked to be there. They were burning buildings down. They were in the wrong. They put everyone in danger. They created the situation. And yet, had they not attacked him, they’d still be alive. No one to blame but themselves.

Nobody else was shot and killed. Only Rittenhouse shot and killed people. Over four days of rioting/protesting. I don't need to connect the dots for you. Rittenhouse was roaming the street putting everyone in danger because he was woefully un-prepared. I get that he is a MAGA, Proud Boy.....so you need to step up the defense here.....but fault isn't a one way street. He was wandering around playing police, panicked and shot people.

One way ticket to jail. And a good lesson for other vigilantes. YOU ARE NOT THE POLICE. YOU DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,209
Reaction score
4,782
Points
113
I don't feel bad for Rosenberg (or whatever his name is) or the other guys who got shot either. Sounds like they were shitheads. But that doesn't mean that Rittenhouse should be let off with a slap on the wrist. Going to that situation with a loaded AR and no authority whatsoever put everyone in danger. Seems like he was trying to play police and people took exception to it. Rittenhouse had an itchy trigger finger and was quick to shoot.

Tough break for him if his intentions were good. But it sure seems like he wanted to play cowboy and ended up making a big mistake. That shouldn't get rewarded.



The people chasing him were doing so because he was walking around with an AR and shot someone to death. What world do you live in?



Nobody else was shot and killed. Only Rittenhouse shot and killed people. Over four days of rioting/protesting. I don't need to connect the dots for you. Rittenhouse was roaming the street putting everyone in danger because he was woefully un-prepared. I get that he is a MAGA, Proud Boy.....so you need to step up the defense here.....but fault isn't a one way street. He was wandering around playing police, panicked and shot people.

One way ticket to jail. And a good lesson for other vigilantes. YOU ARE NOT THE POLICE. YOU DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY.
Authoritah.0.jpg
 




Top Bottom