May truth prevail

Funny you pray for him and not his victims.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Funny you pray for him and not his victims.

---

Unless OP types out every person who needs prayer he must be an insincere hypocrite? What a ridiculous thing to say.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Funny you pray for him and not his victims.

---

Unless OP types out every person who needs prayer he must be an insincere hypocrite? What a ridiculous thing to say.

---

This is a case of a kid who murdered 2 people and permanently injured another. Seems relevant.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Funny you pray for him and not his victims.

---

Unless OP types out every person who needs prayer he must be an insincere hypocrite? What a ridiculous thing to say.

---

This is a case of a kid who murdered 2 people and permanently injured another. Seems relevant.

---

Seems like they all need prayer. A simpler 'please pray for the victims' would have been the mature response.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Funny you pray for him and not his victims.

---

Unless OP types out every person who needs prayer he must be an insincere hypocrite? What a ridiculous thing to say.

---

This is a case of a kid who murdered 2 people and permanently injured another. Seems relevant.

---

Seems like they all need prayer. A simpler 'please pray for the victims' would have been the mature response.

---

Would it? I was interested in the OP's logic. Given I don't think prayer does much, it wouldn't have been a genuine statement from me.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Funny you pray for him and not his victims.

---

Unless OP types out every person who needs prayer he must be an insincere hypocrite? What a ridiculous thing to say.

---

This is a case of a kid who murdered 2 people and permanently injured another. Seems relevant.

---

It's not murder when they attack first. I don't doubt he may be a daft kid, but it was on video and looked an awful lot like he was avoiding confrontation

Aggrad08 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Funny you pray for him and not his victims.

---

Unless OP types out every person who needs prayer he must be an insincere hypocrite? What a ridiculous thing to say.

---

This is a case of a kid who murdered 2 people and permanently injured another. Seems relevant.

---

It's not murder when they attack first. I don't doubt he may be a daft kid, but it was on video and looked an awful lot like he was avoiding confrontation

---

It was murder. I saw the video. He had no business being there. He was armed. He was a threat to them.

Being armed isn't enough to make you a threat. I've walked past armed people very many times. Not once could I have attacked them, chased them, hit them with objects, reached for their weapons and not been considered the aggressor.

You have to threaten with the weapon. And you sure as **** can't count running away as assault.

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's not murder when they attack first. I don't doubt he may be a daft kid, but it was on video and looked an awful lot like he was avoiding confrontation

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Funny you pray for him and not his victims.

---

Unless OP types out every person who needs prayer he must be an insincere hypocrite? What a ridiculous thing to say.

---

This is a case of a kid who murdered 2 people and permanently injured another. Seems relevant.

---

It's not murder when they attack first. I don't doubt he may be a daft kid, but it was on video and looked an awful lot like he was avoiding confrontation

---

Had he not gone out of his way to engage protestors while carrying a weapon, none of it would have happened. To drive to another town with a weapon into a tense situation, you're asking for a reason to use the weapon. We don't need militias for law enforcement. But I agree with Sapper…take it to F16 where everyone will agree with you

Sapper Redux said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Being armed isn't enough to make you a threat. I've walked past armed people very many times. Not once could I have attacked them, chased them, hit them with objects, reached for their weapons and not been considered the aggressor.

You have to threaten with the weapon. And you sure as **** can't count running away as assault.

---

Not the politics forum, so I'm not going to go into it. I strongly disagree. Said my piece on that. Want to take it back to religion or philosophy?

---

You don't think what constitutes the right to defend oneself is sufficiently philosophical?

Yup that's rather daft. But that's not how the law works, you still have to be the literal aggressor.

The asking for it stuff just doesn't work in the law. You don't say people walking alone in bad neighborhoods are asking for it. Hell you can't even say people wearing the wrong gang colors in the wrong neighborhood are asking for it.

You have to actively threaten people or be in the process of some crime (and not just any crime) to justify violence, and presence simply doesn't meet that standard. The kid ran, there was no need to chase.

And but for being chased and attacked there appears to be zero chance he hurts anyone that night. Having daft ideas about race doesn't mean you lose the right to self defense.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Being armed isn't enough to make you a threat. I've walked past armed people very many times. Not once could I have attacked them, chased them, hit them with objects, reached for their weapons and not been considered the aggressor.

You have to threaten with the weapon. And you sure as **** can't count running away as assault.

---

Not the politics forum, so I'm not going to go into it. I strongly disagree. Said my piece on that. Want to take it back to religion or philosophy?

---

Eh self defense and the laws relating to it is as philosophical as it gets if you ask me. Like the poster said above I like when the rubber hits the road and you have to test ideas.

I get this is a heavily political case. And I find the worship and vitriol toward the kid both completely unfounded and evidence of clouded judgment.

In most instances a case like this never makes the national news nor should it.

To take a less overtly political stance, he never should have been there. He never should have felt the need to be there. At various points in the night Rittenhouse personally did the job of an EMT bandaging wounds, a firefighter putting out blazes, and a cop using deadly force to protect. All of those services should have already been their doing all of those things.

What we saw was a complete failure of a government to perform it's most basic duties. So local amateurs stepped up to do those jobs themselves, leading to predictably tragic results. Two dead, one injured, and the amateur first responder on trial by the very system that left them all to fend for themselves

Rittenhouse? Was this the guy that broke down in tears on the stand remembering the day he shot some people while he was defending himself? Or was he the guy just recently accused of going to a bar, flashing white power signs and signing the proud boys anthem while in the middle of a trial where he shot a couple people at a BLM March?

It is unfortunate that your political views render you unwilling or incapable of discussing the facts and philosophical implications of major current events. It is even more unfortunate that given said lack of willingness or capability, you are nonetheless quick to throw out an accusation you will not support. You accuse one man of murder and another of hypocrisy and then quickly bail out behind the cover of "wrong forum". This is just one more example of what is wrong with our political climate. We have too many hurling accusations without partaking in rational discourse.

Who is the other side? Is it an actual group of people or is it just whoever disagrees with you on any given topic?

If it's always the same people who constitute the other side, those aren't the people on this forum. You and aggrad usually agree on here; it's hard to believe he's "the other side".

If it's whoever happens to be disagreeing with you at the moment, that just sounds like you're being lazy and lumping people together who aren't really that similar.

GQaggie said:

---

It is unfortunate that your political views render you unwilling or incapable of discussing the facts and philosophical implications of major current events. It is even more unfortunate that given said lack of willingness or capability, you are nonetheless quick to throw out an accusation you will not support. You accuse one man of murder and another of hypocrisy and then quickly bail out behind the cover of "wrong forum". This is just one more example of what is wrong with our political climate. We have too many hurling accusations without partaking in rational discourse.

---

It's not my political views. I think I've shown I'm quite capable of arguing about those. It's more a complete cynicism visible on this topic and every other. You want my opinion?

He boasted about wanting to shoot looters. He traveled illegally across state lines with a weapon he wasn't allowed to have. He placed himself in a town he didn't know so that he could play cop/soldier despite having zero experience or training. He is on camera pointing his weapon at protesters, leading one of them to attack him, at which point he killed him, leading other protesters to attack him, leading to another death and wounding a man who was also armed and attempting to defend himself. At what point does any of this sound like a reasonable action and a reasonable use of force? Was it when he actively sought out this situation? Or was it when he threatened people who assumed he wanted to harm them? Or was it when the consequences of his actions showed up?

Sapper Redux said:

---

GQaggie said:

---

It is unfortunate that your political views render you unwilling or incapable of discussing the facts and philosophical implications of major current events. It is even more unfortunate that given said lack of willingness or capability, you are nonetheless quick to throw out an accusation you will not support. You accuse one man of murder and another of hypocrisy and then quickly bail out behind the cover of "wrong forum". This is just one more example of what is wrong with our political climate. We have too many hurling accusations without partaking in rational discourse.

---

It's not my political views. I think I've shown I'm quite capable of arguing about those. It's more a complete cynicism visible on this topic and every other. You want my opinion?

He boasted about wanting to shoot looters. He traveled illegally across state lines with a weapon he wasn't allowed to have. He placed himself in a town he didn't know so that he could play cop/soldier despite having zero experience or training. He is on camera pointing his weapon at protesters, leading one of them to attack him, at which point he killed him, leading other protesters to attack him, leading to another death and wounding a man who was also armed and attempting to defend himself. At what point does any of this sound like a reasonable action and a reasonable use of force? Was it when he actively sought out this situation? Or was it when he threatened people who assumed he wanted to harm them? Or was it when the consequences of his actions showed up?

---

Nothing you posted has anything to do with this case.

It is all about self defense. He will walk.

It's painfully obvious several of you have not followed this trial at all.

Kyle had no business being there? Neither did the three felons who attacked him. Kyle shouldn't have had a weapon? Neither should they.

You should abstain from commenting about that which you are ignorant.

Ignoring any particular details of this case if you want I find the notion that the physical aggressors e.g. the rioters or protesters et. al. Being justified in attacking a much more liberal definition of self defense than I'm comfortable with.

You are effectively saying any and all of those men should have been been able to walk home free and clear had they killed rittenhouse. That he posed such a clear and present danger that they required both active pursuit and deadly force with no duty to stand ground, retreat, or restrain themselves in any way.

This is pretty ironic as the rittenhouse case rest entirely on a more traditional self defense case which is actively rejected in place of a much more freewheeling definition.

Broadly, I don't find this justified and while I think it's cut and dry that this isn't how the actual law was/is applied in the US even in all its variations, I don't think it should be written this way in the future.

Edit: meant to reply to sapper

Quote:

---

He traveled illegally across state lines with a weapon he wasn't allowed to have. He placed himself in a town he didn't know so that he could play cop/soldier despite having zero experience or training. He is on camera pointing his weapon at protesters, leading one of them to attack him

---

None of those things are true. The weapons charge was rightly dropped as he bought it legally. He never took the gun across state lines. He lived nearby, worked and regularly did community service in the town before the night in question. He and his friends were asked to patrol by several local businesses. He was initially threatened when responding to a truck fire, and only then did he out down his fire extinguisher and arm himself. These are the undisputed facts of the case. The narrative you just repeated is verifiably wrong.

Not trying to call you out specifically, as that's the version I heard as well until I learned more. But it's a bit troubling that the popular narrative can be so blatantly off. If I were more conspiracy minded I'd have a field day, as is I think it's just the typical rumor mill combined with a hefty dose of confirmation bias

Sapper Redux said:

---

GQaggie said:

---

It is unfortunate that your political views render you unwilling or incapable of discussing the facts and philosophical implications of major current events. It is even more unfortunate that given said lack of willingness or capability, you are nonetheless quick to throw out an accusation you will not support. You accuse one man of murder and another of hypocrisy and then quickly bail out behind the cover of "wrong forum". This is just one more example of what is wrong with our political climate. We have too many hurling accusations without partaking in rational discourse.

---

It's not my political views. I think I've shown I'm quite capable of arguing about those. It's more a complete cynicism visible on this topic and every other. You want my opinion?

He boasted about wanting to shoot looters. He traveled illegally across state lines with a weapon he wasn't allowed to have. He placed himself in a town he didn't know so that he could play cop/soldier despite having zero experience or training. He is on camera pointing his weapon at protesters, leading one of them to attack him, at which point he killed him, leading other protesters to attack him, leading to another death and wounding a man who was also armed and attempting to defend himself. At what point does any of this sound like a reasonable action and a reasonable use of force? Was it when he actively sought out this situation? Or was it when he threatened people who assumed he wanted to harm them? Or was it when the consequences of his actions showed up?

---

I believe a number of your facts are incorrect. Trial evidence showed he crossed state lines without the weapon, which was purchased and stored in Wisconsin. He isn't facing any gun charges as the gun laws in Wisconsin carried what is evidently a vague and poorly worded exception for rifles and shotguns.

There is quite a bit of video evidence and testimony demonstrating possible altruistic reasons for going to Kenosha. Ultimately, we'll never know his true motives with any certainty. As Ramblin mentioned, the kid did a lot of good that day and night. Regarding his comments about wanting to shoot looters, those came from a video in which no faces, including Rittenhouse's were seen. The prosecution never made it public how they obtained the video, and the judge didn't believe it fit to be admitted into evidence. Maybe it was Rittenhouse making those comments, but that is sketchy evidence at best.

Is there any evidence of him pointing his weapon at people we can clearly know we're not threatening him?

I appreciate the attempt to explain your position, but much of it seems to be based on beliefs that fail any real burden of proof. At the very least, you should be able to understand how a reasonable and well-meaning person could disagree with your assessment. No need to call the OP out for hypocrisy.