Rittenhouse case

Doesn't matter if it was a gun, skateboard, or bare hands. If you can articulate that you felt your life was in danger of death or serious bodily injury...well...(yeah being knocked unconscious is serious bodily injury). Know the laws before you try to argue against them. Whether you agree with them or not it is still the law.
 
Creekwood said:
Off topic directly related to this tragedy, but my thoughts on kids and guns. I have told you before that the majority of my relatives are Americans or Canadians living in the US. Same for my wife. A few years ago, my wife’s niece graduated from university and was moving to Atlanta. He parents (who are hunters, avid gun owners/users) bought her a small handgun for her to have when she moved out. She has used guns before, but they thought she should have one, living in Atlanta. Probably the same story for many people. ANd I know the she knows how to aim and shoot. But she is not tactically trained to know what to do in a bad situation.

So at the time, having children about the same age, I wondered if I lived in the US, would I do the same thing. And I thought, no way. And here is why:
- lets say a criminal decides he’s going to attack her and has a gun. If she pulls a gun, then whether she is on the right or wrong end of the lead depends on her skills and composure as compared to that criminal. Its not a dice I would want to roll for her. Yeah some will say they can train their kids to be better than the criminals with guns in a fast stressful situation. But that is a big gamble. It might come down to losing a purse or an iPhone vs your life.

When I was young and stupid I had the idea that because I was smart and strong and fit, that I could be a tough guy. And sometimes that worked, but there were a few times when I gambled that I would be tougher than that a-hole over there mouthing off to a buddy. And I got my ass kicked. Point being, staying out of a situation is way smarter than heading into one. You may be better with a gun or your fists than most people, but not all people. Do you feel lucky, punk?
Click to expand...
I agree it is a tough balancing act but you won't be the one to control it. Unfortunately the bad guy will be the one that dictates what direction any scenario will go unless there is some type of intervention. I prefer to be the one to dictate how a bad situation will go. Maybe it is just a purse but maybe it's more. And yeah, I have a few years of Tae Kwon Do and a few years of Tang Soo Do, aw well as a few years of MMA training but I'd rather not have to rely on that if things go south. Not saying carrying is for everyone and in some cases it may escalate some situations but I'd rather have and not need.
 
Juliery said:
No person travels to a neighboring community, with a gun, expecting "something positive" will result. However, you are entirely correct on the rest of your thoughts.
Click to expand...
His father lives there, so yes it's his community too. Stop assuming and find the truth yourself. That's what the jury did. Kyle had more guts and balls than most adults.
 
Creekwood said:
Off topic directly related to this tragedy, but my thoughts on kids and guns. I have told you before that the majority of my relatives are Americans or Canadians living in the US. Same for my wife. A few years ago, my wife’s niece graduated from university and was moving to Atlanta. He parents (who are hunters, avid gun owners/users) bought her a small handgun for her to have when she moved out. She has used guns before, but they thought she should have one, living in Atlanta. Probably the same story for many people. ANd I know the she knows how to aim and shoot. But she is not tactically trained to know what to do in a bad situation.

So at the time, having children about the same age, I wondered if I lived in the US, would I do the same thing. And I thought, no way. And here is why:
- lets say a criminal decides he’s going to attack her and has a gun. If she pulls a gun, then whether she is on the right or wrong end of the lead depends on her skills and composure as compared to that criminal. Its not a dice I would want to roll for her. Yeah some will say they can train their kids to be better than the criminals with guns in a fast stressful situation. But that is a big gamble. It might come down to losing a purse or an iPhone vs your life.

When I was young and stupid I had the idea that because I was smart and strong and fit, that I could be a tough guy. And sometimes that worked, but there were a few times when I gambled that I would be tougher than that a-hole over there mouthing off to a buddy. And I got my ass kicked. Point being, staying out of a situation is way smarter than heading into one. You may be better with a gun or your fists than most people, but not all people. Do you feel lucky, punk?
Click to expand...
I think this is a very valid view point. As with most things it comes down to individual preference and the ability to make the choice to own and carry. Willingness to be educated and accountable are a big part of it. I would say that most young girls leaving home for the first time are better off learning how to avoid being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time rather than be given a hand gun and thinking that will keep them safe. Good decision making though has to be fostered from a young age instilled by a strong family environment which sadly is just another institution crumbling before our eyes.
 
RBB said:
sounds like the president is on the edge of pandering to unlawful behavior. so disappointing to me that someone like him can be elected to the highest office in the world only to be so weak.
Click to expand...

….you mean “elected”.
Didn’t he label the defendant a white supremacist just before the “election”? Isn’t that illegal?
 
Juliery said:
A judge is required to be impartial. Schroeder should have been recused, perhaps disbarred, for multiple examples of egregious bias toward the defense. There are a litany of judicial errors and demonstrated incompetence in this "trial", not least of which is Schroder, in a multiple murder case sitting, reading a cookie catalogue. His mind was made up. This could have been "American Justice" - but it's another oxymoron.
Click to expand...

I used to hold the edumacation system in Oh Canada… in higher regard until I read your ignorant post. I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise coming from a Socialist. :cool:
 
Juliery said:
A judge is required to be impartial. Schroeder should have been recused, perhaps disbarred, for multiple examples of egregious bias toward the defense. There are a litany of judicial errors and demonstrated incompetence in this "trial", not least of which is Schroder, in a multiple murder case sitting, reading a cookie catalogue. His mind was made up. This could have been "American Justice" - but it's another oxymoron.
Click to expand...
Your nuts. Please detail the errors.
 
RBB said:
its obvious to me sir you have zero understanding of justice. In fact the decision was based on Wisconsin law. The right to defend your self. I also live in a state that allows that without retreat. However the kid did retreat and they still came after him.
Click to expand...
Interesting how most lefties miss the part about his retreat.
 
Juliery said:
17 year old Rittenhouse indeed broke the law.

Wisconsin law says that ‘any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.' There is the exception for rifles and shotguns. However, that exception allows minors ages 16 and 17 to hunt. But, as is very clear, Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.

Or was he?
Click to expand...
You’re a moron. Go read the law.
 
Juliery said:
The defendants gun transformed situations that might have ended in black eyes and broken bones into ones that ended with corpses in the street. Rittenhouse’s illegal possesion of his gun was not just a danger to rival protesters. According to his own defense, the gun posed a grave threat to Rittenhouse himself — he said he was very afraid of being overpowered and then shot with his own weapon.

This self-defense is circular reasoning: Rittenhouse says he brought the gun from his home, several miles away. He carried the rifle into the protest in order to guarantee his safety. He was forced to shoot at four people when his life and the lives of other people were threatened, he says. What was he protecting everyone from? The very gun strapped to his own body, the one he’d brought to keep everyone safe. He said he’d chosen a military-style rifle over a pistol because he couldn't get a pistol and because the rifle "looked cool."

After shooting 2 unarmed people to death, Rittenhouse was met by Gaige Grosskreutz, an E.M.T. who testified in the trial that he firmly believed in the right to bear arms and prepared for that night like any other: “It’s keys, phone, wallet, gun.” Grosskreutz testified that, as an EMT, he was on the scene to provide medical help. To him, after the two shootings he witnessed, it appeared that Rittenhouse was an “active shooter.” Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz squared up, face to face, each lethally armed. But Grosskreutz hesitated. After pointing his gun at Rittenhouse, he testified that he could not take the kid's life. Rittenhouse had no such qualms. He fired, hitting Grosskreutz in his right biceps.

from Nov. 18, 2021 New York Times
Click to expand...
Ha. The New York Times. Now there is a reliable source. Get a clue dude.
 
Last edited:
Creekwood said:
I hope that a positive outcome of this is that people (kids actually) will realize that if you take a visible assault rifle to a protest/riot/gathering there is a chance you will be using it, and you might be on the wrong side of the bullets. Right or wrong don’t matter if you are dead.
Click to expand...
I’m hoping the elected officials will own up to being responsible for this killing by allowing riots/looters to do what they do and not protecting the property of the local citizens. If the police force had been hauling people to jail for the night, this never would’ve happened.
 
Juliery said:
You assume? However, we have no right to travel away from home to throw gas on a fire, as young and exceptionally stupid criminal Kyle Rittenhouse did.
Click to expand...
Actually he didn’t travel from home as he spent time living in Kenosha with his father. His mother lived in Antioch IL.
 
Juliery said:
Kyle Rittenhouse choosing his own jury is a preposterous fact. The teen was asked by Schroeder to draw numbers of six jurors who would be dismissed, effectively choosing the 12 deliberating his fate. The judge in the case, however, said on Wednesday, “I think people feel better when they have control.”
Click to expand...
What difference does it make? No matter who did it they pulled juror numbers, random picks not associated with any actual 'person' at the time.
 
Blueone said:
Its like they want to insight riots




Andrew Cuomo
@andrewcuomo

Today’s verdict is a stain on the soul of America, & sends a dangerous message about who & what values our justice system was designed to protect We must stand unified in rejecting supremacist vigilantism & with one voice say: this is not who we are
Click to expand...
Hard to believe Cuomo said that;) After all, he did threaten to kick the shit out of some little fella and then throw him down a set of stairs. Gee, you could kill someone doing that.
 
Juliery said:
A judge is required to be impartial. Schroeder should have been recused, perhaps disbarred, for multiple examples of egregious bias toward the defense. There are a litany of judicial errors and demonstrated incompetence in this "trial", not least of which is Schroder, in a multiple murder case sitting, reading a cookie catalogue. His mind was made up. This could have been "American Justice" - but it's another oxymoron.
Click to expand...
He did this during a break and you think it demonstrates incompetence and bias. Oh the Drama...
 
boatman37 said:
I agree it is a tough balancing act but you won't be the one to control it. Unfortunately the bad guy will be the one that dictates what direction any scenario will go unless there is some type of intervention. I prefer to be the one to dictate how a bad situation will go. Maybe it is just a purse but maybe it's more. And yeah, I have a few years of Tae Kwon Do and a few years of Tang Soo Do, aw well as a few years of MMA training but I'd rather not have to rely on that if things go south. Not saying carrying is for everyone and in some cases it may escalate some situations but I'd rather have and not need.
Click to expand...

And that is your choice and your right. But you are gambling that you are better than the other guy. Maybe with your martial arts training that will increase your odds of being right. Maybe your tactical training with firearms will be better that the criminal's experience/skills when you both pull your guns. Maybe not.

Kyle got lucky that the other guy with a gun was not quicker than him to pull the trigger. It very easily could have gone the other way and someone shot him because they feared for their life seeing an "active shooter" with an AR15 running towards them after the initial shots. Also, if he had missed the shots at the guy with the gun, and the guy with the gun shot him instead the outcome would have been very different. Its actually an interesting speculation if you think about it. Kyle shoots, but does not take down the other guy with the handgun. Guy with handgun then shoots and kills Kyle because now his life is in danger. I wonder if the jury would also have found the other guy not guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,202
Messages
1,428,460
Members
61,109
Latest member
Minnervos
Back
Top