Questions About Kyle Rittenhouse

[Raptorsin7]

I have a few questions about the Kyle Rittenhouse case that I'm curious to hear opinions on. I believe he is innocent because he was aggressed upon and he had a right to defend to property and the community against the violence and rioting of sd red protestors.

If Kyle Rittenhouse was at the protest with the purpose to defend property and the community against violent protestors and looters, why is it unacceptable for him to be there? If the government did not respond to violence because of political fears and backlash, who is responsible for protecting and defending business's and property?

What is the alternative to individual citizens policing private property when the government will not take responsibility for the violence and looting? Is there an expectation that the community must accept loot and violence because there is some legitimacy to the protesting cause?

How would do you expect Kyle Rittenhouse to handle a situation where he is being aggressed upon by a stage red sociopath who is playing their own ideological war in their head? Kyle Rittenhouse did not go into the protest shooting at innocent bystanders and protestors. He was aggressed upon in both situations, and the logical response is to defend yourself against aggressors. He was seen running away, and still the bystanders chose to follow him and aggress upon him.

In my view this is stage blue (order and structure) responding to the toxic elements of red (looting and violence) in a protest.

I care about the truth and the reality of what happened. I am not ideological and I am open to being wrong, if my core assumptions and beliefs on the case can be challenged and moved.

[Opo]

Hope this doesn't get locked. 

[Raptorsin7]

24 minutes ago, Opo said:

Hope this doesn't get locked. 

It might, I don't blame mods for not wanting too many polarized arguments.

But theres a lack of clear thinking and desire for truth in this discussion, and I want to see what's real 

[Mason Riggle]

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

I posed questions for a reason. Can you distill this into an answer to my questions so I can respond?

[Mason Riggle]

@Raptorsin7 basically, Rittenhouse had no business being there armed. He was impersonating an EMT, which is a misdemeanor, there was a city wide curfew, and by knowingly entering a violent situation armed, he effectively forfeighted any claim to self defense. 

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

basically, Rittenhouse had no business being there armed. He was impersonating an EMT, which is a misdemeanor, there was a city wide curfew, and by knowingly entering a violent situation armed, he effectively forfeighted any claim to self defense. 

He did have business being there. There was looting and rioting, and the government did not take responsibility for the protection of the community so it was left to the community. Either community members protect their business' and property, or they allow their neighborhoods to be destroyed and looted.

I agree that he should not have impersonated an EMT, he should be guilty of a misdemeanor if that's the case.

Does the curfew not apply to the people who were out there looting and rioting, and even the one's continuing to protest? The protestors knowingly entered and caused a violent situation, so what is their right to self defence?

Rittenhouse was aggressed upon in both situations where there were shots, he did not go into a store and start gunning down those around it and those looting. He even attempted to runaway from the situation to de-escalate, but he was chased down. 

Why did the protestors chase him and down and attack him when he was running away?

Imagine a school shooting where the shooter started running away with the gun's effectively holstered and not being aimed. Who would be foolish enough to rush the shooter when there is no active threat? And this situation is nothing like an active shooter situation, there were violent protests and looting. The protestors are responsible for the collective nature of the violence and looting, they cannot plead helplessness when people come to protect the community.

Do you believe the community should simply allow the destruction of property and looting when the government refuses to intervene? 

 

[Mason Riggle]

You ask, what is the alternative to citizens protecting private property when the government won't. 

Well, then answer is not a satisfactory one for many... there's no 'bandaid' fix to this problem.  But, if you are person who believes in the rule of law, then you take action to make sure the law works the way it should.  You look at fixing the systemic corruption of the US legal system which led to the riots in the first place with the shooting of George Floyd. 

[Raptorsin7]

1 minute ago, Mason Riggle said:

Well, then answer is not a satisfactory one for many... there's no 'bandaid' fix to this problem.  But, if you are person who believes in the rule of law, then you take action to make sure the law works the way it should.  You look at fixing the systemic corruption of the US legal system which led to the riots in the first place with the shooting of George Floyd. 

What is your answer?

So in the meantime we should allow looting and destruction because there is injustice committed against a small number of a disenfranchised community?

Next time there is a police shooting we should gather a large number of people and start burning down local business' and government structures because there are unjust laws. Until they resolve all the systemic injustice we will continue to loot and burn! For anyone who is against this, make sure to fix the white supremacy structure and then we will stop!

[Mason Riggle]

13 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

 

Why did the protestors chase him and down and attack him when he was running away?

 

To disarm him so he doesn't shoot any more people???

Edited November 23, 2021 by Mason Riggle
spelling

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

Do disarm him so he doesn't shoot any more people???

He was not continuing to shoot, there were clear options for the protestors to get the police and not escalate the violence.

He was running away, and he was aggressed upon. He had a right to shoot when people are chasing him.

Chasing him down needlessly escalated the situation.

Imagine a situation where a business owner shoots a looter in their store, would the looters be entitled to rush the shooter because they don't want others to get shot? No, they don't. There is a causal chain, and those who act first bring upon them the consequences.

 

[Mason Riggle]

I'm not condoning rioting. 

I'm saying you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. 

If you're taking the law into your own hands, you forfieght any protection the law offers you. 

[Raptorsin7]

3 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

I'm not condoning rioting. 

I'm saying you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. 

If you're taking the law into your own hands, you forfieght any protection the law offers you. 

You are condoning rioting. 

If the government, who has the right of the law, does not take responsibility for preventing violence and looting then who is responsible? 

You seem to be saying that in this case no citizens have the right to take responsibility to protect their community, and so the looting and rioting is an inevitable consequence.

Also, if he is there with the intent to protect property and the community, he is assisting and is therefore an extension of business owners protecting their property and livelihoods. Do you acknowledge that business owners have a right to protect their property and business's when there is rioting and looting? 

We could just easily say that when you are apart of a protest that involves looting and rioting that you forfeit any right to be assumed as a peaceful protestor. As far as a business owner or authority figure is concerned you are an active combatant by choosing to remain in a violent protest against government curfew

Edited November 23, 2021 by Raptorsin7

[Mason Riggle]

@Raptorsin7 show me where I condone rioting? 

Legally, you can not protect property with deadly force. I don't make the laws. 

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

@Raptorsin7 show me where I condone rioting? 

Legally, you can not protect property with deadly force. I don't make the laws. 

Because you are providing no alternatives to the community to protect their business'. If the government does not take responsibility because of political correctness and fear of political backlash then what are the options for protection?

So if someone breaks into a business and starts looting and destroying what is a business owner supposed to do? What is the business owner supposed to do if a looter decides to aggress upon them? 

[Mason Riggle]

@Raptorsin7 if the looter agresses upon them they can defend themselves with lethal force. 

If their business is destroyed, they file an insurance claim. 

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

@Raptorsin7 if the looter agresses upon them they can defend themselves with lethal force. 

If their business is destroyed, they file an insurance claim. 

So the looter aggression against business is acceptable?

So in Ritten Houses' case when he was aggressed upon, should he not be entitled to defend himself with lethal force?

What if they run a business with poor insurance claims? And they know they stand to lose a significant portion if not their entire livelihood? 

[Mason Riggle]

Maybe we should be more concerned with how to prevent rioting than with how to defend business from rioters. 

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

It’s a incorrect analysis. Problems with it;

”and you engage in violence” - there is no evidence Kyle did violence aside from shooting his attackers.

”no different than looking up criminal past of 9/11 victims p” - no it isn’t, the 9/11 victims were victims who were attacked, the people Kyle killed were chasing and attacking him.

”kid was illegal all the way around” - no law he broke has been provided and proven 

 

3 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Raptorsin7 basically, Rittenhouse had no business being there armed. He was impersonating an EMT, which is a misdemeanor, there was a city wide curfew, and by knowingly entering a violent situation armed, he effectively forfeighted any claim to self defense. 

That’s not how that works, if you are attacked you can defend yourself period. By your logic, if it was Kyle attacking the looters/rioters, they have to just sit there and take it, as they came to a violent situation. It’s really not up for debate anymore as the jury already decided. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Raze

[Raptorsin7]

4 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

Maybe we should be more concerned with how to prevent rioting than with how to defend business from rioters. 

Maybe we can do both?

And rioting and looting should be deterred and prevented

Also, why did you choose to not answer my questions?

Edited November 23, 2021 by Raptorsin7