Great result...
- Thread starter gixer1
- Start date
- Status
Cootmeurer
Well-Known Member
alberta boy
Well-Known Member
I'll go out on a limb and say you don't like the US .......... and maybe stop watching CNN for your info , just saying .
The character of the people he killed, is coincidental. He wouldn't have know, and nor would anyone else.
Rittenhouse went there, armed, looking for trouble. Anyone who has seen the video of him walking the street with his AR15, and still thinks he's "innocent", is at best, deluded !
The "all white" jury, good grief...................... justice
Rittenhouse went there, armed, looking for trouble. Anyone who has seen the video of him walking the street with his AR15, and still thinks he's "innocent", is at best, deluded !
The "all white" jury, good grief...................... justice
alberta boy
Well-Known Member
The character of the people he killed, is coincidental. He wouldn't have know, and nor would anyone else.
Rittenhouse went there, armed, looking for trouble. Anyone who has seen the video of him walking the street with his AR15, and still thinks he's "innocent", is at best, deluded !
The "all white" jury, good grief...................... justice
I think you made up your mind before the verdict . Would you feel better if the jury was composed of BLM members ? I still find it odd that everyone keeps bringing up black oppression when it was three white guys that were shot . I'm not going to comment on the legal system of another country like the US , or the UK for that matter . There has been a lot of discussion on our side of the border about this case . Most legal thought here reflects the outcome reached today in the US , he would've been found innocent . As to being armed and looking for trouble , maybe . It wasn't hard to find when there were mobs of lowlifes burning and looting a city . There are a lot of problems in the US , just like here and in the UK . A 17 year old kid stood up and tried to make a difference, like it or not , he is , in every legal sense , innocent .
AB
Well, I did just watch the videos here. There's something of a vigilante mindset for sure, I don't know what compelled him to "defend" property and offer aid to people that are hurt or if that was genuinely why he was there. 17 year old might be desperate to do some good, likes the excitement or was just plain bored.The character of the people he killed, is coincidental. He wouldn't have know, and nor would anyone else.
Rittenhouse went there, armed, looking for trouble. Anyone who has seen the video of him walking the street with his AR15, and still thinks he's "innocent", is at best, deluded !
The "all white" jury, good grief...................... justice
Evidence in the article I linked certainly seems to show it being self-defence, that is irrefutable. There's only a picture pre-shooting of the first guy who he shot, where someone else is firing a gun into the air whilst the guy who got shot first lunges at Kyle, moments before getting shot. Okay, him introducing a rifle into that situation in the first place is what gave him the fear of the guy lunging at him taking the rifle and shooting him (Kyle), let alone being there in the first place. It is America, their laws are different (state dependant), he's able to take a rifle, open carry and stand outside a property at night for whatever reason so regardless of why he was there, it was most definitely self-defence.
Second and third guy getting shot is absolutely, 100% self-defence and no doubt saved his life. He does not shoot or point a gun maliciously at anyone until a fourth individual takes him to the ground. It seems he fires of a round, probably intending to shoot the guy who tackled him but doesn't. Then, assailant #2 and #3 turn up, #2 clobs him with a skateboard while #3 is running towards him with a handgun drawn. All this while dozens of a baying mob hound him.
If Kyle DIDN'T shoot #2 and #3, I think "mob justice" would have ended his life that night.
I don't think the colour of the jury's skin matters, as far as have seen the 3 guys shot were white. Anyway...
We can argue about the whole picture and why he was there in the first place, but nothing he did up to the point of getting attacked was illegal. With all that in mind, I would agree with the court ruling and say he is not guilty.
I haven't got a dog in this race, I never heard of Kyle until today and became curious with all the traffic on his court case.
Cootmeurer
Well-Known Member
Not coincidental at all. The surviving criminal was a felon, legally barred from possessing firearms, yet he was there at a violent protest armed with an illegal weapon. He then, by his own words on the stand, aimed said illegal weapon at Kyle, at which time he was shot in the arm.The character of the people he killed, is coincidental. He wouldn't have know, and nor would anyone else.
Rittenhouse went there, armed, looking for trouble. Anyone who has seen the video of him walking the street with his AR15, and still thinks he's "innocent", is at best, deluded !
The "all white" jury, good grief...................... justice
This pretty much sums up the saying "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
As to the Main Stream Media talking point about Kyle crossing the border looking for trouble, that is deliberate misconstruing of the facts. He lived on the border between two states, he crossed that border on a daily basis, because his mother lived on one side, his fathers side of the family lived on the other. Do you routinely talk about the horrible crime of border crossing each time someone East Sussex to West Sussex? That is the reality we are talking about.
And when he routinely crossed from one side to the other, would he routinely don his AR15 ?
He made a point of getting his rifle, carrying it openly, and going to an area where he knew there was rioting.
As far as I’m concerned, this act, was inciting trouble, which it did, and people died as a consequence.
Thank god we have the firearms laws we have !
norcan
Well-Known Member
If I know there is a riot in a nearby city ... I travel there, with a large stick, to defend some arbitrary property and just "patrol the streets".
Some random rioter tries to take my stick, I say no, and I smack him in the head, killing him.
Two or three other people, sees this, tries to stop this unknown lunatic (me) swinging a stick at people.
I smack them in the head as well, killing them...
Then I walk over to the police, who are on the scene, but does nothing.
I tell them I killed three guys who tried to take my stick away.
In my country... I would go to jail.
I went knowingly into a riot, with a stick.. (or add knife, shotgun, hunting rifle.)
If the riot made its way to MY house.. and somebody tried to endanger me and my family.. and I ended up killing two or three..
I would not go to jail.
Putting weapons into a hot situation, when nobody knows who you are, will escalate a bad situation.
I would love to own a AR-15 and parade it all over my little town.. while I am doing a little grocery shopping.
But, I would NOT want my twice next over neighbor to do the same, because he is a god damn full blown idiot, and I wouldn't trust him with a dull pocket knife in public.
So I am happy we have laws that exclude some from owning weapons and properly vet those that want to.
.
Some random rioter tries to take my stick, I say no, and I smack him in the head, killing him.
Two or three other people, sees this, tries to stop this unknown lunatic (me) swinging a stick at people.
I smack them in the head as well, killing them...
Then I walk over to the police, who are on the scene, but does nothing.
I tell them I killed three guys who tried to take my stick away.
In my country... I would go to jail.
I went knowingly into a riot, with a stick.. (or add knife, shotgun, hunting rifle.)
If the riot made its way to MY house.. and somebody tried to endanger me and my family.. and I ended up killing two or three..
I would not go to jail.
Putting weapons into a hot situation, when nobody knows who you are, will escalate a bad situation.
I would love to own a AR-15 and parade it all over my little town.. while I am doing a little grocery shopping.
But, I would NOT want my twice next over neighbor to do the same, because he is a god damn full blown idiot, and I wouldn't trust him with a dull pocket knife in public.
So I am happy we have laws that exclude some from owning weapons and properly vet those that want to.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cootmeurer
Well-Known Member
Thank God we don’t have your firearms laws here. He did nothing that was illegal, perhaps poor judgement but that has never been a crime. I would assume a scantily clad woman walking into a bar of horny drunks is poor judgement, but entirely legal - it is the criminals that act on that poor judgement that are the guilty parties.
If we want to talk about poor judgement and culpability, that would rest firmly on the politicians that chose to allow a violent protest to happen and did little if anything to stop it. Our 2nd amendment is present to allow citizens to protect themselves when the government refuses to. It is not there to protect hunting weapons.
Ultimately this was a failure by government to protect the citizenry and their property, and then a further deliberate effort by the media to promote falsehoods therefore inciting and inflaming the situation further
A Guy Out West
Well-Known Member
AB, he’s a lost cause, I explained to him once that he needs to be a critical thinker, but it went right over his head.
A Guy Out West
Well-Known Member
Very well said. I agree that his judgement was beyond dumb to put himself in that position. The first rule for those of us that carry is to never knowingly put yourself in a position where you might have to use your firearm. I’m very happy for him that this turned out the way it did.
norcan
Well-Known Member
Hahaha...
You’re insinuating he was the only one with a gun - there were literally hundreds of armed people there - he did not shoot anyone who was not a threat…..they proved that by showing him not shoot the guy who backed up and put his hands up….until the idiot pointed a gun at him and attacked him…..
Also, when he travelled to Kenosha earlier that day and the day before to scrub graffiti off the walls was he looking for trouble then?
Regards,
Gixer
What surprises me is given the violence and deaths that have happened at protests I.e. charlottesville, that someone who intentionally goes there, with a weapon and them shoots person 1, doesn't think that others may try and stop him so while he may have acted in self defense surely it's of his own making that he was attacked in the first place.
If you look at any other shootings into groups of people most would say they wanted the shooter stopped
If you look at any other shootings into groups of people most would say they wanted the shooter stopped
- Status
