I mean they more than jumped him.
.
They harassed him. One threatened to kill him. Then at different points in the night they: tried to take his weapon from him. chased him down. Ambushed him. Tried to curbstomp his head (which is an attempt on his life). Tried to cave his head in with a skateboard (which is also an attempt on his life). Pointed a loaded weapon at him. Fired a loaded weapon either at him or in his vicinity while he was trying to get away from them. Ignored his attempts to get to the police
No more so than at least one of the people he shot, then.
.
Kinda falls under the whole: "if she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have been wearing that skirt
Kind of idiotic to riot and not think anything would happen.
Kind of idiotic to fuck around and think you won't find out.
Kind of idiotic to chase down a guy running to the police.
Kind of idiotic to try to disarm the guy you chased down who was running to the police.
Kind of idiotic to try to bludgeon a guy who is on the ground and has a rifle.
Kind of idiotic to pull a gun on the guy who already smoked the people trying to beat him to death, feign surrender to drop his guard, and then try to shoot him anyways after he let you live.
And the prosecution? They're just idiots.
Yes. Intent to protect businesses that had been attacked already for no reason other then that there was a RIOT. If you have any proof he went there with "intent" then by all means. So far it seems like you just want to demonize a 17 year old boy because he refused to allow someone to attack him without provocation.
If the rapist pedophile, armed felon, and other rioters stayed home, nothing would've happened.
If they just decided not to run down and attempt to murder anybody, they'd probably not have been shot, definitely not by Rittenhouse.
Clearly they went there with intent, to either kill or die, and Kyle was the poor fucking kid they forced into making that call. Thank God he had a rifle, fuck knows what the mob would've done to a young man or woman trying to control fires who wasn't able to defend themselves.
By the logic that he went there with intent, that means literally every single person anywhere near the riot or within the riot after it initially started should be on trial for attempted murder and accessory to arson. The fact they were there and either went there after it started or stayed there after it started, shows intent the same way that this logic implicates rittenhouse
And if the girl hadn't gone out at night, she never would have been dragged into an alley by a group of armed adults attempting to gang-rape her.
.
Okay? Yes there is a certain degree of "if you enter this situation something may happen to you." But that doesn't make what happens justified.
.
As Bethorien (and likely the others) have put it:
If the other fuckbois hadn't been out setting shit on fire and looting businesses and kidnapping people and putting them into comas...
.
If the police and politicians and EMT and fire Departments hadn't proven to either be neutered or willingly useless...
.
If the ADULTS had done their fucking jobs, and the criminals had stayed in prison, a 17 year would never have been put in a position where he felt he had to be there in the first place
no one is in the right in this, i'm just saying, there would have been no other outcome for him confront rioters with a rifle, what do you think would happen in that situation?
"No one was in the right in this. I'm just saying she went into that bar in that miniskirt and took her eyes off her drink for a second. What did she think the outcome would be?"
.
.
As an aside, iirc He didn't confront them, they confronted him. Repeatedly. He was there to:
-remove graffiti
-put out fires these fuckboi's set
-offer medical aid
-keep people from harassing a business
.
And no, I honestly can't say that a 17 year old in America should assume that if he dares to exist with a rifle that means he is instigating people trying to CAVE HIS HEAD IN with both feet and skateboards or firing guns at him.
.
He tried to get them to leave him the fuck alone. He headed to the police. These people would not let him go.
.
And then, when it was over, they mourned the fact that they had failed to kill him. And people blamed HIM for their own actions.
Did you even watch the videos? He didn't confront anyone. He was attacked without provocation. That is blatantly obvious. I have no idea why you are so against Kyle considering he was assaulted by multiple people. Xvarnah making the comparison to blaming the rape victim is completely accurate.
A rifle invites confrontation.....Are you serious? Did you really just say that? So if you saw a cop walking down the street you'd attack him because he's armed? What kind of logic is that? "Hmm that guy is carrying a gun. I better smack him with a shoe." Nevermind that he's a cop or a bodyguard or security for the embassy.
He didn't "invite confrontation". He prepared for it.
Does keeping a fire extinguisher invite arson? Does an aid bag invite injury? Does a seatbelt invite reckless driving? Especially from others?
Educate your victim-blaming ass.
This clearly isn't going anywhere. You refuse to acknowledge my questions or statements and you keep bringing up the same illogical point. Enjoy ringing your bell.
He didn't "bring a rifle to oppose a riot". He went to Kenosha to help the city he worked and spent most days of the week in. He cleaned the messes from the night before, offered medical aid to whoever needed it, and stood ready to defend life, his own or others, from possible aggressors.
His only mistake? Stopping assholes from sending a burning dumpster to a gas station.
Then they tried to shoot him, tried to unlawfully disarm him, ignored his attempts to get to the police, tried to stomp his head in, bash his skull in, shoot him after feigning surrender, and the poor illegally armed felon who tried to execute him only regretted that he didn't kill the kid who was running to the police after being forced to defend his life from multiple assailants already.
If anything the rifle was a deterent, and I am terrified to imagine what those criminals, one of them a serial rapist of children, would have done to him if he were defenseless.
What other outcome could there possibly be carrying pepper spray in a back alley.
.
Clearly she wanted someone to try and rape her.
.
.
No one forced the rioters to be there. No one forced them to approach Kyle's group on their property. No one forced them to make threats on his life.
.
No one forced the adults to approach him again later of their own accord. No one forced them to attack 17 year old based on nothing but their own retardation and moral outrage.
.
By doing so they DID force him to use that gun.
.
And no one forced the media and the Justice system after to deny video evidence. To ignore testimony. To paint a 17 year old as a white supremacist deserving of death because he doesn't agree that the reaction to a black man dying -- POSSIBLY OF A DRUG OVERDOSE -- is allowing thugs and fascist-wannabes to burn a fucking city to the ground.
But now I want to know your solution.
.
Your city is being burnt to the ground.
.
You know rioters are there. You know rioters cannot be counted on to be reasoned with by words. You know they have been attacking people for days if not weeks already. Pulling them from their vehicles. Smashing their heads into concrete so hard they end up in comas. Chasing them down in mobs with bats. Trying to rape them. Trying to kill them. And no, none of this is made up, it's based on shit that actually happened, and I will cite you in real life if I have to.
.
They've been burning down businesses, blockading streets. Terrorizing people and taking EVERYTHING they have and own.
.
You also know that the police are useless. You can call. They won't come. You know EMT and fire will likely not be able to get there, and be in extreme danger if they try.
.
You have some medical training. Some fire training. You know people that live in this area.
.
What do YOU do?
One quibble, xvarnah. I'm pretty sure the Kenosha riots weren't over Floyd, but Blake. Not a possible overdose, but a rapist violating restraining order, ignoring officers, shrugging off pepper spray, reaching into a vehicle for a weapon while attempting to kidnap children, and ultimately being praised by our VP as a hero after cops finally shot him.
I leave this here since it seems relevant: “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” -John Stuart Mill.
Kyle was in the streets in the midst of protestors, comparing carrying an assault rifle out in the open as opposed to pepper spray in a bag is quite different.
There was no one getting their heads smashed into the ground during th riots, none that i could see, where are the actual reports on that, in Kenosha.
I just don't think anything would have happened if he wasn't in the street, not private property carrying a rifle.
Based on this, I can take a rifle to a riot, and as soon as i feel threatened, open fire under the guise of self defense. of course people will say "why the f are you carrying a rifle" and challenge me for it, but that's just the point of carrying a rifle.
as for what i'd do, defend myself and my property, on my property, not going down the street. How far from his home was he? He claimed it was his job to defend a car dealership, cause the cars, that have insurance, were burned. It's not actually his job, nor was it made clear if he was asked to do such a thing, even the police told him to leave and barred him from coming back. Seems odd, considering it was his job.
"Based on this, I can take a rifle to a riot, and as soon as i feel threatened, open fire under the guise of self defense. of course people will say "why the f are you carrying a rifle" and challenge me for it, but that's just the point of carrying a rifle."
.
No, fuck no. That's not how any of it works! None of anything you've typed is how anything works! Are you doing this deliberately?
And your entire second comment can be dismissed out of hand, as it is irrelevant to the entire case.
so what i'm getting from everyone, during a riot, where the main protagonists are blacks, that it is ok for a white boy to go out in the street with a rifle and nothing should happen. So that's the recommendation?
No.
He was provided with a rifle while in the town his dad lived where Kyle also went to work everyday. Where he cleaned litter and graffiti, offered medical aid, weathered constant harassment, volunteered to protect local businesses from further destruction, and put out at least one dumpster fire that criminals were attempting to crash into a gas station.
Watch the fucking trial. Even the surviving bad guy admitted to being the aggressor.
how am i now a racist?
yes, i saw that, the bad guy admitted he got shot after he raised his pistol on the kid. But he would not have brought out his gun on someone that was unarmed. It's a mob mentality to just gang up on the odd one out, in this case, a white boy in amongst the crowd, and him being armed, offered a challenge.
"so what i'm getting from everyone, during a riot, where the main protagonists are blacks, that it is ok for a white boy to go out in the street with a rifle and nothing should happen."
.
Kyle's race has fuck all to do with at least my opinion on this. But to add to that note: the people Kyle shot? None of them were black. Keep slinging shit until something sticks, but for the love of god try harder or cry harder than this
.
.
"But he would not have brought out his gun on someone that was unarmed."
.
Calls for speculation. You literally have no idea where, when, or why this guy would have drawn his gun - or even if he'd had it out earlier in the evening.
.
I have a knife clipped to my purse sometimes. By your logic if I'd gone out on the street, these lunatics would have been within their rights to kill me because I was provoking them by existing in the vicinity of a weapon.
"There was no one getting their heads smashed into the ground during th riots, none that i could see, where are the actual reports on that, in Kenosha."
.
I didn't say Kenosha. I said riots where... oh how did you put it... "BLACK PEOPLE are the protagonists."
.
Meaning it had happened in similar situations carried out by people behaving identically to the ones that attacked Kyle (in the name of Black people, of course).
.
"It's not actually his job."
.
That's actually somewhat correct. It's the job of police to protect property and people when someone tries to set things on fire or threaten to kill people or break into buildings.
.
Unfortunately due to the riots of the black protagonists (wtf is this terminology anyway), the police were not. Doing. Their. JOB.
.
But good for you that you're willing to let a building burn down or someone bleed out 20 feet away from you if it comes to that.
"Based on this, I can take a rifle to a riot, and as soon as i feel threatened, open fire under the guise of self defense. of course people will say "why the f are you carrying a rifle" and challenge me for it, but that's just the point of carrying a rifle."
.
Literally not what happened and what a disingenuous take on it.
.
Kyle didn't "Fire " the moment he felt threatened. He'd been threatened repeatedly throughout the night.
.
He FIRED when the person who had threatened to kill him tried to take his gun from him.
it's not racist to say black people, you know in England, you don't refer to them as "African American", as they are not, they see themselves as "black", in australia, they see themselves as black, so it's not racist in the least.
.
What i am understanding, that during riots, where there is a history of violence against people, the best thing to do is send in a young boy with a rifle, cause that's not going to escalate the situation in the least.
.
Yes it's speculation, but understanding a mob mentality where they will do more than what they would do alone, bring a rifle clearly out in the open would escalate a situation, which it did.
.
You did mention he was going to defend people that were assaulted, raped and murdered, but you also say that none of that happened in that area. I'm in Australia, I can do that can I? cause that's not happening here, but i can go out and defend because of it? how does that work.
.
Clearly I have the minority opinion, i see fault on both sides.
No legal fault on the part of rittenhouse, he was in public taking part in a constitutionally protected activity. From a legal perspective there is no fault as taking part in a constitutionally protected activity can be used only as reason to investigate an individual if there are other independant signs of a crime, however that does not allow it to be used as evidence of motive or intent, only as a "reasonable cause to investigate" to a police officer who sees it happening and it cannot lead to an arrest by itself. Usually this takes the form of filming public officials in the process of doing their job or photographing public locations, however the principle applies to all constitutionally protected activity and the state he was in does not regulate his carrying of a long arm so he was not acting criminally. He was then attacked therefor making his use of force legally justified. He did not goad or taunt his assailants, (fighting words doctrine) therefor he was not at fault.
i'm looking at it as a point of escalation, he was armed in public and was challenged for it, right or wrong. If he wasn't armed, there'd be no challenge. Acting in self defense, yes, he had little to no choice, bringing a gun to a riot, he had a choice, being there, he had a choice.
having a knife is by far a different thing than carrying a rifle during a riot.
.
You're all on about the victim, ok, true story, my exgf was fighting me, keep in mind, I never struck back, but I threw her by her foot into a wall, a brick wall, she impacted about half way up and fell down. End of the fight, I'm the victim, right, self defense.
.
instead of that, I could have punched her in the face, closed fist as hard as I wanted, self defense, considering i've done some training, a single punch could very well have done serious damage, but i would have only hit back once.
"You did mention he was going to defend people that were assaulted, raped and murdered, but you also say that none of that happened in that area. I'm in Australia, I can do that can I? cause that's not happening here, but i can go out and defend because of it? how does that work."
.
I'm gonna need this translated to something a bit more coherent because currently it makes no sense.
.
You seem to have misunderstood something to a large degree. The point of mentioning the attempted murders, rapes, kidnapping etc wasn't to say that was definitely happening that night. But it HAD happened on multiple occasions in other American cities under the same pretense. Because attempted murder is acceptable if you do it in the name of Black people for some reason.
.
So it's not unreasonable to assume there may be some hostile people on the streets doing similar things IN Kenosha that night. So people going into Kenosha may well need some form of protection from the deranged animals partaking in this behavior.
.
I know there were brawls in Kenosha that night. I know there were break-ins. I know there were blockades set up to keep police from entering streets. I know there were multiple fires set. Multiple people injured.
.
The police did fuck all to protect the property and people that the "peaceful protestors" were destroying.
.
Kyle didn't go there looking to start shit with anybody. He went there at the request of the owners of some property and because he cares about the community
He had MORE right to be there than ANYONE there to set the place on fire.
.
He brought first aid supplies and was offering it to people - including iirc the mob containing the innocent pedophile and felons that would go on to try and kill him.
.
He put out a fire that those people had set.
.
He told them he was friendly.
.
In your mind this means nothing?
.
Because if you go somewhere with a gun that automatically means you are trying to start a deathmatch with anyone around you who is mentally unhinged, and YOU are responsible for THEIR actions.
.
If this is the logic you're comfortable using, that makes it suddenly very clear how Australia is turning into a fascist country at such an alarming rate all of a sudden.
As the defense put it:
Kyle had as much right to be there and remain unmolested by the likes of Rosenbaum as anyone else.
.
Kyle doesn't forfeit his right to exist because adults lack self control, or aren't taking their anti-psychotic medication.
.
We wanna talk about provocation?
.
If the animals hadn't decided to set the city on fire, Kyle never would have had any need to be there in the first place.
.
You want to talk escalation? They waited behind a car to ambush a 17 year old because he was preventing them from burning more shit they didn't own.
.
They waited until he was alone and chased him down when he tried to get away. They tried to disarm him. They kicked him in the head and hit him in the head with a skateboard.
"having a knife is by far a different thing than carrying a rifle during a riot."
.
You're right. I don't carry my knife for survival or to use for defense. Whereas those are literally the only reason Kyle had a gun at all.
.
If he hadn't had a gun the rioters would have left him alone? Really? Because the people they've put in hospitals over the course of these protests would BEG to disagree.
As for your story, I know you've had some pretty shitty abuse in your relationship.
.
That said, I have no idea what point you're making with it in the context of Kyle.
point is, things aren't always as they seem. As for the translation, their were protests here this weekend, but using the excuse bad things happened in other places, doesn't mean i should go armed. Just because bad things happened somewhere else, doesn't mean bring a rifle and pretend to be a hero. heroes don't pretend to cry.
will never know for sure if standing in the middle of the road holding a rifle facing off against rioters would have made a difference if he wasn't there trying to be defiant towards them. I'm just saying, bringing a rifle to that situation escalated it.
i read about the burning of cars and property, things that were insured, even if not insured, you'd prefer the death of someone over the value of a possession?
If you go into a riot area occupied by people claiming to be of a group that has caused previous riots in which people have died and you DONT bring a gun you are an idiot.
Also, as to the last thing you said, a VERY large amount of people the world around would say yes, buildings and cars are more valuable than the lives of people maliciously trying to destroy said property.
Ask the question in reverse. How many resources stolen from others is the Maximum acceptable loses to save a malicious strangers life. Would you give up your life savings and any chance at a safe or stable life for years to come, willfully accepting grief and suffering for years, potentially decades, to save someone actively trying to ruin you? Would you take from another and give away someone else’s life savings and life work, would you doom someone else to that same fate to save one person actively trying to cause grief and suffering upon others?
@iccarus This is embarassing to read. Your eagerness to shift the blame on an individual for carrying a rifle rather then three individuals who attacked someone without cause is astounding. I've met a few confused people and you're near the top of the list. Your logic has no definable path. You just leap from one thing to another. If you want a productive conversation I suggest you start by looking at your own thought process and addressing the massive gaps and logical fallacies.
Hell, there isn’t a small amount of people whose thoughts are so extreme as to say that that at the point it became an arson party burning down buildings and destroying cars that it became an act of domestic terrorism and warranted a direct lethal response. They tried to blow up a gas station for god sake
"If he wasn't there trying to be defiant"
Who the fuck died and made those rioters Emperors of The United States of America? The rioters are the only ones to blame, Kyle had absolutely no part in starting the violence. He didn't provoke jack shit. He did the right thing, that we're all taught to do when raised in a decent household. He actively assisted his community. He stepped up when the authorities deserted their posts.
He did the proper thing and refused to be enslaved by terror and violence, but instead endeavored to help everyone.
Just take your anti-American bullshit and shove it next to your government mandated GPS tagged selfie.
"read about the burning of cars and property, things that were insured, even if not insured, you'd prefer the death of someone over the value of a possession?"
.
Of course I'd value a life over a possession in most circumstances. Such a shame the mob of grown adults didn't feel the same.
.
They valued taking a gun from a kid over his life.
.
Kyle did nothing to them beyond disagree, and yet because he had a gun you say escalation was inevitable. The guys that attacked him had a gun. They fired it, too. One of them had a chain he had been thrashing around. There was also the skateboard that was used as a weapon with intended deadly force.
.
But Kyle's gun was bigger, Kyle used it more effectively and only in self-defence. It was not illegal for him to have the weapon. He had as much right as anyone to be there. He didn't start shit. Only finished it.
And to add to bethorien's statement, I believe it was one of the police officers (but I may have that wrong) that described Kenosha as a warzone that night.
"They valued taking a gun from a kid over his life."
exactly, a trophy that was to be obtained by others.
The whole thing isn't about him "defending himself", it's bringing a gun to a volatile situation with knowledge that either he or someone else was going to die. That's the intent, knowing he would have to use it eventually during the night.
Believing that there would be a peaceful resolution to the night with him holding a gun in the middle of the street is the bewildering part.
You say he went there to help, but alone, where was his support, back up when he was being chased, they go home? gave up?
@famousone you're holding a lot of hate over a difference of opinion. You're the type to say "we disagree on something, therefore we cannot be friends". That's the real shame that you think everything is a fight. I don't see what he did as worthy for accolade, as the consequences were easy to see before the night began.
So you do believe that girls wearing skirts are asking for it, that seatbelts cause car wrecks, and that first aid kits justify beating someone up. Glad we established that.
Do some soul searching, you're fucked.
Oh, but that's exactly the case. I cannot be friends with someone who would blame me for being raped, rear ended, beaten, or especially for going into harm's way to try to help while taking sensible precautions for worst case scenarios.
again, if you go into a riot area, one that xvarnah said was described as a warzone by cops nearby, without a gun you are an idiot.
Also, "The whole thing isn't about him "defending himself", it's bringing a gun to a volatile situation with knowledge that either he or someone else was going to die. That's the intent, knowing he would have to use it eventually during the night. "
this is fallacious and assumes facts not in evidence. The point of bringing a gun is aggression deterrent. If he had gone in there cleaning graffiti and rendering aid to the wounded without a gun he would be dead right now. There is no reason to assume the people that acted aggressively towards him would not have done so if he had no way to defend himself.
One of them had a gun too.
By your logic, the fact the other dude had a gun shows intent to shoot and kill someone, you cannot apply that logic to rittenhouse without applying it to the other guy too, meaning rittenhouse would be dead unarmed with your logic
@iccarus Hold the damn phone. You've said repeatedly that Rittenhouse bringing a rifle into the riot incited the violence but then you ask where his backup is? The guy's who'd have guns? "You say he went there to help, but alone, where was his support, back up when he was being chased, they go home? gave up?"
So the solution to a single armed individual who's inciting violence by being armed is to bring mooore people who are armed? Duuude. Listeeenn too yoursellllf. This is painful. Your logic does not connect in any way. You are literally arguing against common sense things. Once again, if a cop goes into a dangerous situation unarmed does that make him smart or dead? I'll save you the trouble. It's dead. The same for Rittenhouse. There is no difference in the scenario.
wow, one extreme to another. Rittenhouse excuse was he was defending property, against rioters, but alone? Yes, he fired in self defense after guns were raised at him, but him being in that situation is what the prosecutors are questioning, even being a "medic", they pointed out, he put a bandage on someone's foot, and a band aid on someone's hand. His role of medic was out weighed by the people he injured and killed.
@famousone yeah sure, you like to think nothing is wrong with someone standing up to rioters, alone, with a rifle, and that mob mentality will not play any part when it goes wrong. You really think that there would have been a peaceful outcome when he brought a rifle, which isn't the sensible thing to do.
I don't need to do any soul searching, I sleep fine, how about you?
you dont go into a riot zone without a gun, if you do you are an idiot, period. If he had gone without a gun he would be dead.
Even if we assume your logic is valid, your logic says that he would be dead if he hadnt brought his gun because your logic applies to the other people with guns. Even if we assume your flawed logic as correct he would have been killed.
which is it, you cant have both your logic applying and your logic not applying.
Either bringing a gun into the riot zone means you actively went in premeditating killing someone or it doesn't. If it does then kyle would be dead if he went in without a gun. If it doesn't then kyle going in with a gun isnt suspect. Do you double down on your own logic or accept that your logic is flawed? both contradict your proposed end result.
my logic would be to not be there in the first place. But seems most here are saying he fired only cause others pointed their guns at him. But I read today that drone footage showed he aimed his gun first, is that still counted as defense, or an aggressive move?
Watch the fucking testimony. Whoever you're reading is lying to you.
And no, he didn't kill anyone to "protect property". He fired his weapon to defend himself after being isolated, hostiles attempting to disarm him (life threat), stomp his head in (life threat), split his skull with a heavy and narrow club (life threat), and the last guy admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse saw him approach with a (illegal) gun in hand and didn't fire until he pointed it at Rittenhouse after feigning surrender (perfidy, plus life threat).
Rittenhouse had every reason to be there, to offer medical aid, police litter, put out fires, and generally aid the community he worked in where his family lives (not that anyone who wants to do community service needs a justification). The ones who shouldn't have been there are the rioters and the rioters alone.
Bringing the rifle was entirely sensible. Legal, too. And doesn't need to be justified.
If one is cornered or in the right, it doesn't matter if they stand with an army or all alone, but you should know that Kyle was a part of a group, and was separated in the chaos. Maybe deliberately, as one of the fuckers who tried to kill him promised to get him alone so he could kill the kid. To his face, made that promise.
The presence of a rifle did not provoke anything, nothing Kyle did can be considered provocation. And yes, him being attacked is what matters. Not how long her skirt was, not how much she drank, not why she decided to go to a frat house. You sleep fine? You shouldn't. Not when you're blaming victims, ignoring the actual law, questioning why a person would want to do good, or trying to deny someone their rights.
THe person that he claims pointed a gun at him before he shot testified in court that he was telling the truth, testified in court that he aimed his gun at rittenhouse first.
Is this the same footage that the prosecution had to spend 20 hours (and potentially 3 additional days) "enhancing" and still couldn't get it to show what they claimed? Or is that another video?
.
The one they threw a fit over when they weren't allowed to use a third party computer algorithm to zoom and "enhance"?
.
Is this the very blurry evidence they showed where they claim Kyle suddenly became a lefty randomly during the night just to point his gun for half a second, despite the fact that he is not left handed, did not have the gun strapped on that way, and there were no burns on his face from the bullets discharging directly into his nostrils?
.
The one the prosecution had to spend about 20 minutes playing over and over and pointing at repeatedly trying to convince anyone watching not to believe what they're seeing, but only what the prosecution is telling them?
.
I've lost track
Iirc Kyle went there with a group that had been asked to guard a car lot (the owners denied this on the stand, but they were also liable. Literally everyone else claimed they hard requested this, and iirc there was a promise of money being given to an individual who was NOT Kyle).
.
At some point prior to this Kyle was cleaning up graffiti.
.
According to testimony, the owners later told the group that the people they had asked to guard a different lot had abandoned it. Kyle and iirc at least one other person headed there to try and look after it.
.
In the interim Kyle put out a fire using a fire extinguisher and also offered medic aid to people. Someone from Kyle's group actually offered medical assistance to one of the assailants iirc, but don't quote me on that one without researching it.
.
At some point he was separated and attacked.
And you know what? I had an aunt and uncle that ran a shop in America before. If they had asked me to come and try and keep an eye on it so a bunch of psychos didn't turn it into another statistic in a newspaper, not sure I'd say no.
.
And I'd definitely not be going there unarmed.
.
Because when terrorists are attacking the logical answer is not to surrender your rights to their insanity and bend over. You're not actually obligated to protect them from the consequences of being terrible people especially if it means you die in the process.
.
An area where people are swinging chains, and blockading police, and carrying guns, and burning things down.
.
This isn't hacksaw ridge. You don't go into an active warzone without the means to defend yourself.
.
Kyle waved the flag of truce repeatedly. They're the ones who soaked it in blood.
"You don't go into an active warzone without the means to defend yourself." so basically you already know that shots will be fired, people will be injured or killed, before going.
No, you don't know that "shots will be fired". You bring a deterent to try and avert that scenario, and you make damn sure you're ready to use it in case some crazies decide to try and kill you anyways.
Nobody is under any obligation to do nothing while bad shit is going on, and you for sure cannot fault or blame those who try to help and have the good sense to prepare for the worst while hoping for better.
Or what? Do you ignore seatbelts or forgo fire extinguishers because you think that they cause wrecks or provoke fires?
You know it's a possibility. And you know the people doing the gunfire, injuring, and killing are government sanctioned terrorists that will leave buildings to burn and people to die inthe streets.
.
You may have the ability to stop some of that peacefully.
.
So, naturally, you go there in nothing but titey-whiteys and a t-shirt with a huge hippie peace sign on it so you can absolutely make sure nothing about your presence will accidentally provoke the UNMEDICATED CRIMINALS AND ARSONISTS into trying to CAVE YOUR HEAD IN
so this is the steps, get rifle, cross border, go to riot, wait for someone to confront you, wait until they try to attack you, shoot in self defense. Did I miss anything?
And once again incorrect on even the most basic things.
.
Step 1: be asked to come help prevent rioters from attacking a business
Step 2: drive 21 miles into a town you work in and members of your family live in (for comparison David Groskowitz, whose name I will never spell right, drove 51 miles to be there)
Step 3: be given an already loaded rifle for your protection
Step 4: Be confronted by arsonists, vandals, pedophile, convicts, and other criminals
Step 5: have the above make threats on your life
Step 6: offer medical aid to your fellow human beings, and attempt to put out fires set by the above criminals
Step 7: Be attacked by the criminals who, after threatening your life, attempt to take your weapon, and attempt to use lethal force on you repeatedly, and aim their own weapons on you
Step 8: Fire in self defence. Attempt to retreat. Be chased down. Be prevented from reaching the police. Fire some more.
Step 9: be arrested and profiled based on the color of your skin
Step 10: nearly have your life destroyed by ignorant, opinionated people who refuse to even verify 2% of the shit they spout off about as if it is fact
At this point what you're doing is feeling deliberate. You're choosing your ignorance.
.
To what end I cannot say. But it's honestly really bizarre because it's not the kind of behavior I'd typically associate with you.
no, because he's been found innocent, say someone wants to go kills a rioter, they go under the guise of protecting property. Stand in the way of rioters and wait for the moment they are attacked to open fire, it still is self defense, but with the knowledge that bringing a rifle will end in someone getting shot.
My issue isn't that Kyle defended himself, it was bringing the rifle in the first place, I don't see how there would have been any other outcome than a shooting.
Your paranoid delusions aside, the obvious solution remains a valid option:
Fucking don't attack people.
I'll again repeat my questions from before: Do you blame the skirt for the rape? The seat belt for the wreck? The fire extinguisher for arson?
If you go somewhere and WAIT TO BE ATTACKED, it doesn't matter if you were there waiting to be attacked. It doesn't actually even matter if you start the fight (with some stipulations). If you back down or try to retreat, and someone refuses to stop attempting to impose extreme physical harm on you or threat to life, YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO LET THEM KILL YOU.
.
And MOST of the group Kyle was with had guns. Many of the protestors not involved in the incident likely had guns. Most of them at no point fired their weapons.
.
Because the existence of a gun does not immediately mean someone will use it. Even in situations of high tensions.
.
Kyle did not use his gun until he was attacked by a person.
your question from before is irrelevant, the question remains, do you really believe bringing a rifle to a volatile situation won't end in someone getting shot?
yes, Kyle didn't use his gun until he was attacked. I'm just saying, it's now a legal precedent to bring a rifle to a riot and kill someone legally as long as you're attacked first.
My questions are entirely relevant. But I'll answer yours anyways. I'll speak from experience, even. Yes, you can bring a weapon to a volatile situation and not expect to use it. To not even want to use it. You can even bring a tool and expect it's mere presence to help keep things from getting bad or worse.
And here's a newsflash for you: It's always been a legal precedent that one can employ lethal force to defend life, limb, and livelihood. If you are attacked first you can and should use whatever means are avaliable to preserve your own wellbeing. Doesn't matter one bit if you're in your own home, a warzone, a city on fire, or just picking up groceries.
your questions are not, did a girl wearing a skirt go out prepared to be raped? as opposed to a guy going to a riot, is prepared to shoot and kill someone.
Answer this, what's the likelihood that a rifle being brought to a riot will be used to shoot someone? small chance, or a high chance?
once again, it's not about him defending himself, it's bringing a rifle to a riot where, as it's been mentioned, there were assaults, arson, property damage.
Do you really believe that there wasn't the thought that he'd have to use it against those people?
Wow. This is amazing. You are still blaming the victim. Nobody forced anyone to attack Kyle. By your logic people are encouraged to attack police because they're armed. Also by your logic every single person that arrived armed would have been attacked including the entire police force. If someone has a gun, personally, I use "Yes, sir" and "No, sir." Why? Because they have s fucking gun! It doesn't matter if I'm faster, stronger, smarter they have a gun and I will respect that fact. As said before, if you attack someone who is armed then you've already accepted the consequences of your decision.
Small chance. Easy. I'll even say that the visible presence of an armed person can be expected to de-escalate or diffuse a volatile situation.
And it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong (I am right, though). Americans are not helpless peasants helplessly waiting for brave knights and lords of war to help us. Especially when those very lords invited the aggressors and ordered the knights to forsake their sworn duties. We are freemen. Wholly entitled to go into any situation we damn well please so long as we don't attack anyone, break anything, or steal a single thing.
We are under no obligation to bow to brigands, invaders, gangs, mobs, or even God Himself.
that's where i see it differently, as do many others where I am, bringing a rifle to a riot there's a high chance someone is going to get shot.
And that brings up another point, say next riots, there are now dozens of armed people "defending" property, when does an assualt beging? threats, physical violence, or the perception that one is about to come to harm?
Police go into volatile situations with guns all the time and, weirdly, no one gets shot in a majority of those situations - EVEN WITH all the anti-cop semantics going on as of late.
.
Body guards go into volatile situations with guns all the time. No one gets shot.
.
People wearing MAGA hats go out in public with their guns. And, as everyone knows, MAGA is the SUREST dog whistle - possibly even out-ranking the swastika these days - to have someone with no self control lose their shit on you.
.
Weirdly, no one gets shot.
.
It's almost like carrying a weapon does not indicate a desire to use lethal force. Even in volatile situations.
.
The weapon was a visual deterrent and nothing more.
.
Like the rattle on a snake. The snake will absolutely make a hell of a racket to tell you to BTFO. But in actuality they are extremely uninterested in ever wanting to take a bite.
.
They only do it if they feel forced.
And if someone has a rifle and shoots someone unprovoked, that's called murder.
.
If someone sees someone with a rifle and threatens to rip their heart out and tries to beat them into the ground, that's called Darwinism. They fucked about. They found out.
.
A person possessing a fire arm legally in a legal setting does not give anyone the right to try and kill them. No matter HOW angry a rioter that person may be. No matter HOW many friends they showed up with.
That's the police, not a civilian, and police usually are in force when going into a volatile situation.
But as famous said, he, as well with a lot believe, bringing a rifle to a RIOT, with a history of violence, has a "small" chance of anyone being shot.
as i said, numerous times, it's not that he had to defend himself, it's that he brought a gun in the first place.
You see a small chance he'd have to use it, I see a very high chance that either he, or someone would get shot.
And once again: he didn't bring a gun "into a riot." He was on private property. The riot came to him. If rioters would just stay away from peaceful citizens with guns they wouldn't get shot. AMAZING how that works.
.
And "they might not have raped her if her skirt was longer." That's not a risk you take.
.
Kyle offered medical aid to the rioters as well - including a member of BLM. It's not his fault an unmedicated child rapist and a bunch of other criminals were loose on the street. It's not his fault they have an issue with anyone who isn't THEM having guns.
Your ignorance is appalling. The fact remains that there's a multitude of professions that use firearms and people magically aren't enraged into attacking those holding the firearm. If you sincerely believe that's true, as you seem to, then God help you if you ever see someone carrying a firearm because apparently you'll be forced to attack them by some mystical source.
Literally not what happened remotely, and a ridiculous bordering on clinically retarded comparison.
.
The reason it's call fish in a barrel is because the fish are trapped, in a confined space, with nowhere to go. It's easy to shoot them. They are no threat to you.
.
The equivalent to this would be Kyle going on top of the roof, doing something to cause the rioters to come toward him, and then shooting them one by one on the street. Bonus points if he somehow managed to blockade them in the area AND make sure they were disarmed as well.
.
If you'll observe the video closely, you may notice that THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. Implying it is is beyond disingenuous.
What happened was a kid went out with a gun. A violent group who also had guns took offense that he existed.
.
They approached him. Threatened to kill him.
.
And later when he was alone they attacked him. Over. And over. Again.
.
With a skateboard. With their feet. With their hands. With a bag. With guns. While he was on his ass on the ground. They attempted to kill him again and again and again. And then mourned the fact that they had failed.
.
They actively PREVENTED him from getting to police.
.
These aren't fucking "fish in a barrel." This was a pack of Hyenas. Who saw a lion separated from it's pride and thought "easy target."
It's genuinely astonishing to me that you can't distinguish between the concepts.
.
But I'll agree, until you CAN distinguish between these concepts, it's probably for the best that you never go anywhere with a gun.
"Hard to miss someone right in front of you"
.
I'll have to go back and find exactly where it occurred, but Kyle did actually miss some of the shots he fired. It's actually insanely easy to miss targets right in front of you when you're disoriented, possibly concussed, in somewhat of a panic, and people are trying to kill you
I know exactly between the concepts, it's not, again, that he defended himself, but I think if he didn't bring a gun, he most likely would not have been targeted. That so hard to understand?
I only go to the shooting range with guns, I know the laws on self defense, also know how to pre-empt a situation and know that bringing a gun to a riot would have a high chance of someone being shot.
Put it this way, if i go to a riot, with a gun, with the purpose to kill someone, but also to protect property, is it intent, or self defense when someone attacks first?
Him being armed made him harder to attack, not a target. Still victim blaming, btw.
There is no reason to think that being armed will lead to someone being shot. It's a deterent and a preventative measure, for worst case scenario.
You clearly do not know the laws in self-defense.
There was no "purpose to kill someone".
There is no intent on the victim's part when somebody else chooses to attack them.
Stop making shit up.
as you believe that there is only a small chance someone would be shot, during a riot, if someone shows up with a rifle, that says it all for what you believe. I'm not arguing with the that, I would have guess, and correctly, that the chances were high, and for it to be a complete surprise to you, shows a level of ignorance that's rarely seen.
The fact you think he wouldn’t have been attacked if he was an easier target is fucking bonkers. Those people were actively destroying the city, those people hospitalised a police officer day one with a brick. To think they would have allowed someone they saw as the enemy to exist near them if they were undefended and unarmed is fucking insane
You say you understand the laws of self defence, and yet you keep talking about intent to kill.
.
There is 0 evidence Kyle had any intention to kill anyone. The exact opposite, actually. Iirc Kyle was actually wearing body armor at one point and gave it to someone else. He wasn't there to fight.
.
And, the other thing is, it doesn't MATTER if he was. It doesn't matter if he'd showed up with a gun with the intent to shoot up anyone he saw.
.
If he hadn't done anything toward that goal beyond show up, no one has the right to try and kill him.
.
Maybe in Australia that's how gun laws work, I genuinely don't know. If you see someone with a gun somewhere you have the right to kill the person holding it.
.
They harassed him. One threatened to kill him. Then at different points in the night they: tried to take his weapon from him. chased him down. Ambushed him. Tried to curbstomp his head (which is an attempt on his life). Tried to cave his head in with a skateboard (which is also an attempt on his life). Pointed a loaded weapon at him. Fired a loaded weapon either at him or in his vicinity while he was trying to get away from them. Ignored his attempts to get to the police
.
Kinda falls under the whole: "if she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have been wearing that skirt
Kind of idiotic to fuck around and think you won't find out.
Kind of idiotic to chase down a guy running to the police.
Kind of idiotic to try to disarm the guy you chased down who was running to the police.
Kind of idiotic to try to bludgeon a guy who is on the ground and has a rifle.
Kind of idiotic to pull a gun on the guy who already smoked the people trying to beat him to death, feign surrender to drop his guard, and then try to shoot him anyways after he let you live.
And the prosecution? They're just idiots.
If they just decided not to run down and attempt to murder anybody, they'd probably not have been shot, definitely not by Rittenhouse.
Clearly they went there with intent, to either kill or die, and Kyle was the poor fucking kid they forced into making that call. Thank God he had a rifle, fuck knows what the mob would've done to a young man or woman trying to control fires who wasn't able to defend themselves.
.
Okay? Yes there is a certain degree of "if you enter this situation something may happen to you." But that doesn't make what happens justified.
.
As Bethorien (and likely the others) have put it:
If the other fuckbois hadn't been out setting shit on fire and looting businesses and kidnapping people and putting them into comas...
.
If the police and politicians and EMT and fire Departments hadn't proven to either be neutered or willingly useless...
.
If the ADULTS had done their fucking jobs, and the criminals had stayed in prison, a 17 year would never have been put in a position where he felt he had to be there in the first place
.
.
As an aside, iirc He didn't confront them, they confronted him. Repeatedly. He was there to:
-remove graffiti
-put out fires these fuckboi's set
-offer medical aid
-keep people from harassing a business
.
And no, I honestly can't say that a 17 year old in America should assume that if he dares to exist with a rifle that means he is instigating people trying to CAVE HIS HEAD IN with both feet and skateboards or firing guns at him.
.
He tried to get them to leave him the fuck alone. He headed to the police. These people would not let him go.
.
And then, when it was over, they mourned the fact that they had failed to kill him. And people blamed HIM for their own actions.
Does keeping a fire extinguisher invite arson? Does an aid bag invite injury? Does a seatbelt invite reckless driving? Especially from others?
Educate your victim-blaming ass.
His only mistake? Stopping assholes from sending a burning dumpster to a gas station.
Then they tried to shoot him, tried to unlawfully disarm him, ignored his attempts to get to the police, tried to stomp his head in, bash his skull in, shoot him after feigning surrender, and the poor illegally armed felon who tried to execute him only regretted that he didn't kill the kid who was running to the police after being forced to defend his life from multiple assailants already.
If anything the rifle was a deterent, and I am terrified to imagine what those criminals, one of them a serial rapist of children, would have done to him if he were defenseless.
.
Clearly she wanted someone to try and rape her.
.
.
No one forced the rioters to be there. No one forced them to approach Kyle's group on their property. No one forced them to make threats on his life.
.
No one forced the adults to approach him again later of their own accord. No one forced them to attack 17 year old based on nothing but their own retardation and moral outrage.
.
By doing so they DID force him to use that gun.
.
And no one forced the media and the Justice system after to deny video evidence. To ignore testimony. To paint a 17 year old as a white supremacist deserving of death because he doesn't agree that the reaction to a black man dying -- POSSIBLY OF A DRUG OVERDOSE -- is allowing thugs and fascist-wannabes to burn a fucking city to the ground.
.
Your city is being burnt to the ground.
.
You know rioters are there. You know rioters cannot be counted on to be reasoned with by words. You know they have been attacking people for days if not weeks already. Pulling them from their vehicles. Smashing their heads into concrete so hard they end up in comas. Chasing them down in mobs with bats. Trying to rape them. Trying to kill them. And no, none of this is made up, it's based on shit that actually happened, and I will cite you in real life if I have to.
.
They've been burning down businesses, blockading streets. Terrorizing people and taking EVERYTHING they have and own.
.
You also know that the police are useless. You can call. They won't come. You know EMT and fire will likely not be able to get there, and be in extreme danger if they try.
.
You have some medical training. Some fire training. You know people that live in this area.
.
What do YOU do?
There was no one getting their heads smashed into the ground during th riots, none that i could see, where are the actual reports on that, in Kenosha.
I just don't think anything would have happened if he wasn't in the street, not private property carrying a rifle.
Based on this, I can take a rifle to a riot, and as soon as i feel threatened, open fire under the guise of self defense. of course people will say "why the f are you carrying a rifle" and challenge me for it, but that's just the point of carrying a rifle.
.
No, fuck no. That's not how any of it works! None of anything you've typed is how anything works! Are you doing this deliberately?
And your entire second comment can be dismissed out of hand, as it is irrelevant to the entire case.
He was provided with a rifle while in the town his dad lived where Kyle also went to work everyday. Where he cleaned litter and graffiti, offered medical aid, weathered constant harassment, volunteered to protect local businesses from further destruction, and put out at least one dumpster fire that criminals were attempting to crash into a gas station.
Watch the fucking trial. Even the surviving bad guy admitted to being the aggressor.
yes, i saw that, the bad guy admitted he got shot after he raised his pistol on the kid. But he would not have brought out his gun on someone that was unarmed. It's a mob mentality to just gang up on the odd one out, in this case, a white boy in amongst the crowd, and him being armed, offered a challenge.
.
Kyle's race has fuck all to do with at least my opinion on this. But to add to that note: the people Kyle shot? None of them were black. Keep slinging shit until something sticks, but for the love of god try harder or cry harder than this
.
.
"But he would not have brought out his gun on someone that was unarmed."
.
Calls for speculation. You literally have no idea where, when, or why this guy would have drawn his gun - or even if he'd had it out earlier in the evening.
.
I have a knife clipped to my purse sometimes. By your logic if I'd gone out on the street, these lunatics would have been within their rights to kill me because I was provoking them by existing in the vicinity of a weapon.
.
I didn't say Kenosha. I said riots where... oh how did you put it... "BLACK PEOPLE are the protagonists."
.
Meaning it had happened in similar situations carried out by people behaving identically to the ones that attacked Kyle (in the name of Black people, of course).
.
"It's not actually his job."
.
That's actually somewhat correct. It's the job of police to protect property and people when someone tries to set things on fire or threaten to kill people or break into buildings.
.
Unfortunately due to the riots of the black protagonists (wtf is this terminology anyway), the police were not. Doing. Their. JOB.
.
But good for you that you're willing to let a building burn down or someone bleed out 20 feet away from you if it comes to that.
.
Literally not what happened and what a disingenuous take on it.
.
Kyle didn't "Fire " the moment he felt threatened. He'd been threatened repeatedly throughout the night.
.
He FIRED when the person who had threatened to kill him tried to take his gun from him.
.
What i am understanding, that during riots, where there is a history of violence against people, the best thing to do is send in a young boy with a rifle, cause that's not going to escalate the situation in the least.
.
Yes it's speculation, but understanding a mob mentality where they will do more than what they would do alone, bring a rifle clearly out in the open would escalate a situation, which it did.
.
You did mention he was going to defend people that were assaulted, raped and murdered, but you also say that none of that happened in that area. I'm in Australia, I can do that can I? cause that's not happening here, but i can go out and defend because of it? how does that work.
.
Clearly I have the minority opinion, i see fault on both sides.
.
You're all on about the victim, ok, true story, my exgf was fighting me, keep in mind, I never struck back, but I threw her by her foot into a wall, a brick wall, she impacted about half way up and fell down. End of the fight, I'm the victim, right, self defense.
.
instead of that, I could have punched her in the face, closed fist as hard as I wanted, self defense, considering i've done some training, a single punch could very well have done serious damage, but i would have only hit back once.
.
I'm gonna need this translated to something a bit more coherent because currently it makes no sense.
.
You seem to have misunderstood something to a large degree. The point of mentioning the attempted murders, rapes, kidnapping etc wasn't to say that was definitely happening that night. But it HAD happened on multiple occasions in other American cities under the same pretense. Because attempted murder is acceptable if you do it in the name of Black people for some reason.
.
.
I know there were brawls in Kenosha that night. I know there were break-ins. I know there were blockades set up to keep police from entering streets. I know there were multiple fires set. Multiple people injured.
.
The police did fuck all to protect the property and people that the "peaceful protestors" were destroying.
.
Kyle didn't go there looking to start shit with anybody. He went there at the request of the owners of some property and because he cares about the community
.
He brought first aid supplies and was offering it to people - including iirc the mob containing the innocent pedophile and felons that would go on to try and kill him.
.
He put out a fire that those people had set.
.
He told them he was friendly.
.
In your mind this means nothing?
.
Because if you go somewhere with a gun that automatically means you are trying to start a deathmatch with anyone around you who is mentally unhinged, and YOU are responsible for THEIR actions.
.
If this is the logic you're comfortable using, that makes it suddenly very clear how Australia is turning into a fascist country at such an alarming rate all of a sudden.
Kyle had as much right to be there and remain unmolested by the likes of Rosenbaum as anyone else.
.
Kyle doesn't forfeit his right to exist because adults lack self control, or aren't taking their anti-psychotic medication.
.
We wanna talk about provocation?
.
If the animals hadn't decided to set the city on fire, Kyle never would have had any need to be there in the first place.
.
You want to talk escalation? They waited behind a car to ambush a 17 year old because he was preventing them from burning more shit they didn't own.
.
They waited until he was alone and chased him down when he tried to get away. They tried to disarm him. They kicked him in the head and hit him in the head with a skateboard.
.
You're right. I don't carry my knife for survival or to use for defense. Whereas those are literally the only reason Kyle had a gun at all.
.
If he hadn't had a gun the rioters would have left him alone? Really? Because the people they've put in hospitals over the course of these protests would BEG to disagree.
.
That said, I have no idea what point you're making with it in the context of Kyle.
will never know for sure if standing in the middle of the road holding a rifle facing off against rioters would have made a difference if he wasn't there trying to be defiant towards them. I'm just saying, bringing a rifle to that situation escalated it.
i read about the burning of cars and property, things that were insured, even if not insured, you'd prefer the death of someone over the value of a possession?
Also, as to the last thing you said, a VERY large amount of people the world around would say yes, buildings and cars are more valuable than the lives of people maliciously trying to destroy said property.
Ask the question in reverse. How many resources stolen from others is the Maximum acceptable loses to save a malicious strangers life. Would you give up your life savings and any chance at a safe or stable life for years to come, willfully accepting grief and suffering for years, potentially decades, to save someone actively trying to ruin you? Would you take from another and give away someone else’s life savings and life work, would you doom someone else to that same fate to save one person actively trying to cause grief and suffering upon others?
Who the fuck died and made those rioters Emperors of The United States of America? The rioters are the only ones to blame, Kyle had absolutely no part in starting the violence. He didn't provoke jack shit. He did the right thing, that we're all taught to do when raised in a decent household. He actively assisted his community. He stepped up when the authorities deserted their posts.
He did the proper thing and refused to be enslaved by terror and violence, but instead endeavored to help everyone.
Just take your anti-American bullshit and shove it next to your government mandated GPS tagged selfie.
.
Of course I'd value a life over a possession in most circumstances. Such a shame the mob of grown adults didn't feel the same.
.
They valued taking a gun from a kid over his life.
.
Kyle did nothing to them beyond disagree, and yet because he had a gun you say escalation was inevitable. The guys that attacked him had a gun. They fired it, too. One of them had a chain he had been thrashing around. There was also the skateboard that was used as a weapon with intended deadly force.
.
But Kyle's gun was bigger, Kyle used it more effectively and only in self-defence. It was not illegal for him to have the weapon. He had as much right as anyone to be there. He didn't start shit. Only finished it.
exactly, a trophy that was to be obtained by others.
The whole thing isn't about him "defending himself", it's bringing a gun to a volatile situation with knowledge that either he or someone else was going to die. That's the intent, knowing he would have to use it eventually during the night.
Believing that there would be a peaceful resolution to the night with him holding a gun in the middle of the street is the bewildering part.
You say he went there to help, but alone, where was his support, back up when he was being chased, they go home? gave up?
Do some soul searching, you're fucked.
Also, "The whole thing isn't about him "defending himself", it's bringing a gun to a volatile situation with knowledge that either he or someone else was going to die. That's the intent, knowing he would have to use it eventually during the night. "
this is fallacious and assumes facts not in evidence. The point of bringing a gun is aggression deterrent. If he had gone in there cleaning graffiti and rendering aid to the wounded without a gun he would be dead right now. There is no reason to assume the people that acted aggressively towards him would not have done so if he had no way to defend himself.
One of them had a gun too.
By your logic, the fact the other dude had a gun shows intent to shoot and kill someone, you cannot apply that logic to rittenhouse without applying it to the other guy too, meaning rittenhouse would be dead unarmed with your logic
So the solution to a single armed individual who's inciting violence by being armed is to bring mooore people who are armed? Duuude. Listeeenn too yoursellllf. This is painful. Your logic does not connect in any way. You are literally arguing against common sense things. Once again, if a cop goes into a dangerous situation unarmed does that make him smart or dead? I'll save you the trouble. It's dead. The same for Rittenhouse. There is no difference in the scenario.
I don't need to do any soul searching, I sleep fine, how about you?
Even if we assume your logic is valid, your logic says that he would be dead if he hadnt brought his gun because your logic applies to the other people with guns. Even if we assume your flawed logic as correct he would have been killed.
which is it, you cant have both your logic applying and your logic not applying.
Either bringing a gun into the riot zone means you actively went in premeditating killing someone or it doesn't. If it does then kyle would be dead if he went in without a gun. If it doesn't then kyle going in with a gun isnt suspect. Do you double down on your own logic or accept that your logic is flawed? both contradict your proposed end result.
And no, he didn't kill anyone to "protect property". He fired his weapon to defend himself after being isolated, hostiles attempting to disarm him (life threat), stomp his head in (life threat), split his skull with a heavy and narrow club (life threat), and the last guy admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse saw him approach with a (illegal) gun in hand and didn't fire until he pointed it at Rittenhouse after feigning surrender (perfidy, plus life threat).
Rittenhouse had every reason to be there, to offer medical aid, police litter, put out fires, and generally aid the community he worked in where his family lives (not that anyone who wants to do community service needs a justification). The ones who shouldn't have been there are the rioters and the rioters alone.
If one is cornered or in the right, it doesn't matter if they stand with an army or all alone, but you should know that Kyle was a part of a group, and was separated in the chaos. Maybe deliberately, as one of the fuckers who tried to kill him promised to get him alone so he could kill the kid. To his face, made that promise.
The presence of a rifle did not provoke anything, nothing Kyle did can be considered provocation. And yes, him being attacked is what matters. Not how long her skirt was, not how much she drank, not why she decided to go to a frat house. You sleep fine? You shouldn't. Not when you're blaming victims, ignoring the actual law, questioning why a person would want to do good, or trying to deny someone their rights.
.
The one they threw a fit over when they weren't allowed to use a third party computer algorithm to zoom and "enhance"?
.
Is this the very blurry evidence they showed where they claim Kyle suddenly became a lefty randomly during the night just to point his gun for half a second, despite the fact that he is not left handed, did not have the gun strapped on that way, and there were no burns on his face from the bullets discharging directly into his nostrils?
.
The one the prosecution had to spend about 20 minutes playing over and over and pointing at repeatedly trying to convince anyone watching not to believe what they're seeing, but only what the prosecution is telling them?
.
I've lost track
.
At some point prior to this Kyle was cleaning up graffiti.
.
According to testimony, the owners later told the group that the people they had asked to guard a different lot had abandoned it. Kyle and iirc at least one other person headed there to try and look after it.
.
In the interim Kyle put out a fire using a fire extinguisher and also offered medic aid to people. Someone from Kyle's group actually offered medical assistance to one of the assailants iirc, but don't quote me on that one without researching it.
.
At some point he was separated and attacked.
.
And I'd definitely not be going there unarmed.
.
Because when terrorists are attacking the logical answer is not to surrender your rights to their insanity and bend over. You're not actually obligated to protect them from the consequences of being terrible people especially if it means you die in the process.
.
An area where people are swinging chains, and blockading police, and carrying guns, and burning things down.
.
This isn't hacksaw ridge. You don't go into an active warzone without the means to defend yourself.
.
Kyle waved the flag of truce repeatedly. They're the ones who soaked it in blood.
Nobody is under any obligation to do nothing while bad shit is going on, and you for sure cannot fault or blame those who try to help and have the good sense to prepare for the worst while hoping for better.
Or what? Do you ignore seatbelts or forgo fire extinguishers because you think that they cause wrecks or provoke fires?
.
You may have the ability to stop some of that peacefully.
.
So, naturally, you go there in nothing but titey-whiteys and a t-shirt with a huge hippie peace sign on it so you can absolutely make sure nothing about your presence will accidentally provoke the UNMEDICATED CRIMINALS AND ARSONISTS into trying to CAVE YOUR HEAD IN
.
Step 1: be asked to come help prevent rioters from attacking a business
Step 2: drive 21 miles into a town you work in and members of your family live in (for comparison David Groskowitz, whose name I will never spell right, drove 51 miles to be there)
Step 3: be given an already loaded rifle for your protection
Step 4: Be confronted by arsonists, vandals, pedophile, convicts, and other criminals
Step 5: have the above make threats on your life
Step 6: offer medical aid to your fellow human beings, and attempt to put out fires set by the above criminals
Step 7: Be attacked by the criminals who, after threatening your life, attempt to take your weapon, and attempt to use lethal force on you repeatedly, and aim their own weapons on you
Step 8: Fire in self defence. Attempt to retreat. Be chased down. Be prevented from reaching the police. Fire some more.
Step 9: be arrested and profiled based on the color of your skin
.
To what end I cannot say. But it's honestly really bizarre because it's not the kind of behavior I'd typically associate with you.
My issue isn't that Kyle defended himself, it was bringing the rifle in the first place, I don't see how there would have been any other outcome than a shooting.
Fucking don't attack people.
I'll again repeat my questions from before: Do you blame the skirt for the rape? The seat belt for the wreck? The fire extinguisher for arson?
.
And MOST of the group Kyle was with had guns. Many of the protestors not involved in the incident likely had guns. Most of them at no point fired their weapons.
.
Because the existence of a gun does not immediately mean someone will use it. Even in situations of high tensions.
.
Kyle did not use his gun until he was attacked by a person.
yes, Kyle didn't use his gun until he was attacked. I'm just saying, it's now a legal precedent to bring a rifle to a riot and kill someone legally as long as you're attacked first.
And here's a newsflash for you: It's always been a legal precedent that one can employ lethal force to defend life, limb, and livelihood. If you are attacked first you can and should use whatever means are avaliable to preserve your own wellbeing. Doesn't matter one bit if you're in your own home, a warzone, a city on fire, or just picking up groceries.
Answer this, what's the likelihood that a rifle being brought to a riot will be used to shoot someone? small chance, or a high chance?
Do you really believe that there wasn't the thought that he'd have to use it against those people?
And it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong (I am right, though). Americans are not helpless peasants helplessly waiting for brave knights and lords of war to help us. Especially when those very lords invited the aggressors and ordered the knights to forsake their sworn duties. We are freemen. Wholly entitled to go into any situation we damn well please so long as we don't attack anyone, break anything, or steal a single thing.
We are under no obligation to bow to brigands, invaders, gangs, mobs, or even God Himself.
And that brings up another point, say next riots, there are now dozens of armed people "defending" property, when does an assualt beging? threats, physical violence, or the perception that one is about to come to harm?
.
Body guards go into volatile situations with guns all the time. No one gets shot.
.
People wearing MAGA hats go out in public with their guns. And, as everyone knows, MAGA is the SUREST dog whistle - possibly even out-ranking the swastika these days - to have someone with no self control lose their shit on you.
.
Weirdly, no one gets shot.
.
It's almost like carrying a weapon does not indicate a desire to use lethal force. Even in volatile situations.
.
The weapon was a visual deterrent and nothing more.
.
Like the rattle on a snake. The snake will absolutely make a hell of a racket to tell you to BTFO. But in actuality they are extremely uninterested in ever wanting to take a bite.
.
They only do it if they feel forced.
.
If someone sees someone with a rifle and threatens to rip their heart out and tries to beat them into the ground, that's called Darwinism. They fucked about. They found out.
.
A person possessing a fire arm legally in a legal setting does not give anyone the right to try and kill them. No matter HOW angry a rioter that person may be. No matter HOW many friends they showed up with.
But as famous said, he, as well with a lot believe, bringing a rifle to a RIOT, with a history of violence, has a "small" chance of anyone being shot.
You see a small chance he'd have to use it, I see a very high chance that either he, or someone would get shot.
.
And "they might not have raped her if her skirt was longer." That's not a risk you take.
.
Kyle offered medical aid to the rioters as well - including a member of BLM. It's not his fault an unmedicated child rapist and a bunch of other criminals were loose on the street. It's not his fault they have an issue with anyone who isn't THEM having guns.
.
The reason it's call fish in a barrel is because the fish are trapped, in a confined space, with nowhere to go. It's easy to shoot them. They are no threat to you.
.
The equivalent to this would be Kyle going on top of the roof, doing something to cause the rioters to come toward him, and then shooting them one by one on the street. Bonus points if he somehow managed to blockade them in the area AND make sure they were disarmed as well.
.
If you'll observe the video closely, you may notice that THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. Implying it is is beyond disingenuous.
.
They approached him. Threatened to kill him.
.
And later when he was alone they attacked him. Over. And over. Again.
.
With a skateboard. With their feet. With their hands. With a bag. With guns. While he was on his ass on the ground. They attempted to kill him again and again and again. And then mourned the fact that they had failed.
.
They actively PREVENTED him from getting to police.
.
These aren't fucking "fish in a barrel." This was a pack of Hyenas. Who saw a lion separated from it's pride and thought "easy target."
.
But I'll agree, until you CAN distinguish between these concepts, it's probably for the best that you never go anywhere with a gun.
.
I'll have to go back and find exactly where it occurred, but Kyle did actually miss some of the shots he fired. It's actually insanely easy to miss targets right in front of you when you're disoriented, possibly concussed, in somewhat of a panic, and people are trying to kill you
Put it this way, if i go to a riot, with a gun, with the purpose to kill someone, but also to protect property, is it intent, or self defense when someone attacks first?
There is no reason to think that being armed will lead to someone being shot. It's a deterent and a preventative measure, for worst case scenario.
You clearly do not know the laws in self-defense.
There was no "purpose to kill someone".
There is no intent on the victim's part when somebody else chooses to attack them.
Stop making shit up.
.
There is 0 evidence Kyle had any intention to kill anyone. The exact opposite, actually. Iirc Kyle was actually wearing body armor at one point and gave it to someone else. He wasn't there to fight.
.
And, the other thing is, it doesn't MATTER if he was. It doesn't matter if he'd showed up with a gun with the intent to shoot up anyone he saw.
.
If he hadn't done anything toward that goal beyond show up, no one has the right to try and kill him.
.
Maybe in Australia that's how gun laws work, I genuinely don't know. If you see someone with a gun somewhere you have the right to kill the person holding it.