Self defense won in the Rittenhouse verdict and the left can't cope any harder

[Nyseto]

Their main arguments that hold no water is that he crossed state lines to hunt people and that there's some sort of white supremacy involved. First off, it was perfectly legal for Kyle to possess a firearm since Wisconsin is an open carry state, and the barrel was long enough according to the statue and his father also lives in Kenosha. All else is wishful thinking. People say he shouldn't of been there, it was foolish, etc. I can say the other 3 'attackers, not victims' shouldn't of been there. Gaige traveled further than Kyle and with a firearm. We might as well say that military personnel should of never joined the military knowing they may be deployed and never come back. So the whole, "He went to hunt people!" is just a subjective, speculative, weak argument. Everyone who did NOT attack Kyle, survived. 

And the whole white supremacy accusations are complete nonsense. All of his attackers were white. The next thing liberals have to go off of is that he had a picture with a proud boy member making an 'ok' sign at a bar..lol. What is NOT white supremacy to the left? The term is so overused and stale that people no longer care or take offense...it's become background noise. 

Everything the media has said about Kyle including the fact checkers has been proven false. As such, it is time for Kyle to sue Joy Reid, Joe Biden, and all the other media outlets who defamed him. Him and Nick Sandmann will be the highest paid individuals by liberal media. 

Honestly, the days are numbered for woke culture. Biden's presidency has expired, we are simply riding the wave now, watching it crash & burn as more ammunition for the right to win 2022 & 2024. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Nyseto

[Rilles]

This is a very non-judgemental and non-biased post. 

[DocWatts]

If you're open carrying a rifle at an incredibly tense protest, you're looking for trouble.

The people who attacked Rittenhouse had an equally legitimate claim to self defense. 

With mass shootings taking place in America every week it's not an unreasonable reaction when you see someone who's clearly not from the area show up to a tense public demonstration armed with a rifle.

Concealed carry is plausible as far as having a weapon for self defense purposes. The only reason to open carry in public is to intimidate other people.

Negligent homicide would have been the correct verdict, as Rittenhouse intentionally put himself and others in a dangerous situation which led to two deaths. 

Gun culture is America is dumpster fire of toxic individualism, fragile masculinity, and corporate lobbying of gun manufacturers who thrive in an environment of paranoia, fear, and suspicion.

The fact that he was fraternizing with a white supremacist gang is completely relevant, as the majority of domestic terrorism committed in this country is  done by far Right ethno-nationalists. The verdict in this trial will embolden others that it's okay to out themselves in intentionally dangerous situations then claim 'self defense' when people end up being killed (if you happen to be white that is, no way in a hell that shit would fly if Rittenhouse was a year old 17 black kid who showed up to a Proud Boys Rally looking for trouble).

Edited November 22, 2021 by DocWatts

[Raptorsin7]

If Rittenhouse was defending property from destruction by looters, how is his presence with a weapon an issue?

If the government will not intervene because of political correctness then community members are forced to take responsibility for the protection of the community.

Are the members of community supposed to accept the needless destruction of their business's and property?

[DocWatts]

5 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

If Rittenhouse was defending property from destruction by looters, how is his presence with a weapon an issue?

If the government will not intervene because of political correctness then community members are forced to take responsibility for the protection of the community.

Are the members of community supposed to accept the needless destruction of their business's and property?

Vigilantism is and should be illegal.

What the hell is a 17 year old kid indoctrinated in to a white supremacist gang doing 'enforcing the law'?

Edited November 22, 2021 by DocWatts

[Rilles]

I thought Leo told yall to behave yourselves.

[Raptorsin7]

@DocWatts What about an answer to questions I already posed

Edited November 22, 2021 by Raptorsin7

[DocWatts]

12 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

@DocWatts What about an answer to questions I already posed

The role of how and when public demonstrations turn violent, and how law enforcement should respond when that happens is a discussion worth having.

But it's a separate discussion from whether private citizens should have the Right to use vigilante violence to enforce the law.

The world we're living in isn't Watchmen, a private citizen has no business going out of his way to travel to a protest with the aim of shooting looters.

And what the hell did Rittenhouse accomplish by the way? Rather than preventing violence from breaking out, his presence escalated an already tense situation so that two people were killed. 

Both legally and ethically individuals have a responsibility to de-escalate. Vigilantism does exactly the opposite. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by DocWatts

[Raptorsin7]

4 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

But it's a separate discussion from whether private citizens should have the Right to use vigilante violence to enforce the law.

The world we're living in isn't Watchmen, a private citizen has no business going out of his way to travel to a protest with the aim of shooting looters.

And what the hell did Rittenhouse accomplish by the way? Rather than preventing violence from breaking out, his presence escalated an already tense situation so that two people were killed. 

But who is responsible for the protection of the community?

The government would not step in because politicians are afraid of backlash. What do the politicians care if small business's are destroyed?

Private citizens have the right to assist other citizens in the protection of their own property, when the state does not take responsibility for policing it's own communities.

Rittenhouse was approached in both incidents where there were shots. Everyone who was shot was the aggressor towards Rittenhouse, they deserved to be shot.

Are you saying the community should have just accepted looting and rioting when the government does not intervene?

Edited November 22, 2021 by Raptorsin7

[DocWatts]

12 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

But who is responsible for the protection of the community?

The government would not step in because politicians are afraid of backlash. What do the politicians care if small business's are destroyed?

Private citizens have the right to assist other citizens in the protection of their own property, when the state does not take responsibility for policing it's own communities.

Rittenhouse was approached in both incidents where there were shots. Everyone who was shot was the aggressor towards Rittenhouse, they deserved to be shot.

By that logic DC Residents would have been completely justified showing up to the Jan 6 insurrection and gunning down the MAGA insurrectionists who were breaking in to the capital building to prevent the Election from being certified.

Why not? Institutional biases within the Capitol Hill Police led to them to not take violence breaking out as a serious possibility, despite numerous warnings well in advance.

Politicians wouldn't send in the national guard to restore order because it would look bad, and because Trump was hoping the insurrection would succeed in preventing the election from.being certified. And all while the lives of US representatives were in danger.

Are you supportive of vigilantism because the one pulling the trigger in Rittenhouse's case is on your 'Team', or are you willing to take a more consistent and principled stance on this issue?

Edited November 22, 2021 by DocWatts

[Raptorsin7]

1 minute ago, DocWatts said:

By that logic DC Residents would have been completely justified showing up to the Jan 6 insurrection and gunning down the MAGA insurrectionists who were breaking in to the capital building to prevent the Election from being certified.

Why not? Institutional biases within the Capitol Hill Police led to them to not take violence breaking out as a serious possibility, despite numerous warnings well in advance.

Politicians wouldn't send in the national guard to restore order because it would look bad, and because Trump was hopefully the insurrection would succeed in preventing the election from.being certified. And all while the lives of US representatives and were in danger.

Are you supportive of vigilantism because the one pulling the trigger in Rittenhouse's case is on your 'Team', or are you willing to take a more consistent and principled stance on this issue?

Why do you assume that I have any sympathy for the Jan 6 insurrection?

This is a classic whataboutism.

How come you won't answer my question about the appropriate response to looting and destruction of property?

I think you are very misguided on this issue.

[DocWatts]

@Raptorsin7 It's not whataboutism, it's just demonstrating the actual implications of empowering private citizens to enforce the Law through the use of vigilante violence.

I chose that example because the Right is making a hero of Rittenhouse, with Trump supporters shouting about it the loudest (including the person who posted this thread). 

However, if I attributed to you political views that you do not hold, I apologize.

As to looting and the destruction of property, the only legitimate use of violence from private citizens is to defend thier lives from immediate danger. If someone breaks in to your house you have a right to shoot that person because in that situation your life is in danger.

Once that person leaves your house, you do not have a right to chase them down, shoot them in the back, and reclaim whatever it was that was stolen from you. It's the role of the Police and Criminal Justice system to enforce the Law, not that of a private Citizen to take the law in to thier own hands.

If the Police aren't doing thier job, then Police Institutions need to be made more accountable to the communities they serve. Which is to be done using political institutions, rather than by untrained citizens with zero vetting or oversight getting to enforce the Law in whatever manner they see as appropriate.

[Leo Gura]

@Nyseto Banned for being blatantly ideological. This is not how we behave here.

This forum is not a place for spewing political dogma and tribalism.

If you are going to talk about politics here do so in a non-ideological and non-partisan way.