Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[CID1990]

Standing i front of businesses defying people to destroy them is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is an aggressive act, not a defensive one.

I’m surprised at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm surprised at you! He shouldn't have been there, plain and simple. If Kenosha wants to let the town burn, then let it burn.

Now vigilantism is “shouldn’t have been there”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Col Hogan]

I can admit that vigilante maybe isn't the best word...but the fact remains that he bought a gun illegally and then interjected himself into a powder keg. It wasn't a wise decision.

i challenge you to back up this statement!!!

[SeattleGriz]

I can admit that vigilante maybe isn't the best word...but the fact remains that he bought a gun illegally and then interjected himself into a powder keg. It wasn't a wise decision.

Rittenhouse didn't buy the gun. His friend bought it and is in trouble for a "straw purchase". Technicality, but still the truth.

[Col Hogan]

So let's say a person is standing in front of a business or home while trying to protect it with a gun.
And a person or group of persons begin to cause damage to the structure.
Is there a legal right to use the gun to stop the damage? Does the person with the gun have to be on the inside to use a self defense excuse?

Depends on a couple of things…including what state you are in. If those trying to damage the building are also attacking you, maybe by throwing rocks, or physically coming onto the property to throw, say a Molotov cocktail, and you know there are people inside, then I’d say yes, you may use the weapon. But again, depends on the locale

What if the person with the gun is on the outside and a looter is exiting the business or home with stolen property? Is there any legal recourse to shoot the looter?

In this case, most laws would not allow you to use your weapon unless they directly attacked you in the course of departing the building. Now, here in Texas, you could be justified using your weapon under certain circumstances…. Check your local laws.

I'm trying to understand where the law allows the use of a gun in the absence of defense of bodily harm.

Hope this helps. There is no national standard, and there should not be a national standard…just like there’s no national standard on drivers licenses, barber licenses, etc…And, may I add, self-defense is not an excuse…

[kalm]

I'm surprised at you! He shouldn't have been there, plain and simple. If Kenosha wants to let the town burn, then let it burn.

Now vigilantism is “shouldn’t have been there”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Col Hogan]

I can admit that vigilante maybe isn't the best word...but the fact remains that he bought a gun illegally and then interjected himself into a powder keg. It wasn't a wise decision.

Rittenhouse didn't buy the gun. His friend bought it and is in trouble for a "straw purchase". Technicality, but still the truth.

Are you sure his fried was charged with a straw purchase…I thought it was a different charge relating to his allowing Rittenhouse to use the weapon…

[CID1990]

Now vigilantism is “shouldn’t have been there”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No thread is complete without klam dropping in with a logical fallacy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

No thread is complete without klam dropping in with a logical fallacy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don’t like it because it’s true.

[SeattleGriz]

Rittenhouse didn't buy the gun. His friend bought it and is in trouble for a "straw purchase". Technicality, but still the truth.

Are you sure his fried was charged with a straw purchase…I thought it was a different charge relating to his allowing Rittenhouse to use the weapon…

Could be wrong, but thought that was what I read. I also could have not been thinking clearly as I found the article on Yahoo News! Was in shock Yahoo would allow anything that would defend Rittenhouse.

I believe the issue was his friend purchased the rifle with his money and was going to give it to him when he turned 18.

[Col Hogan]

Are you sure his fried was charged with a straw purchase…I thought it was a different charge relating to his allowing Rittenhouse to use the weapon…

Could be wrong, but thought that was what I read. I also could have not been thinking clearly as I found the article on Yahoo News! Was in shock Yahoo would allow anything that would defend Rittenhouse.

I believe the issue was his friend purchased the rifle with his money and was going to give it to him when he turned 18.

Giving a gun as a gift should not qualify as a straw purchase…otherwise I know a lot of illegal transfers take place around December 25th every year…

But seeing how the prosecutor in kenosha applies the law, it wouldn’t surprise me…

[DSUrocks07]

Now vigilantism is “shouldn’t have been there”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So Gooseneck Byeceps reasoning for driving across the state to Kenosha with a gun he wasn't allowed to possess would be...

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

[DSUrocks07]

Uh oh, this response doesn't fit the narrative at all...

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Kyle Rittenhouse lived approximately 20 miles or so from the incident. His father lives in Kenosha.

Government in this country is based upon “We the People”. When government fails to protect “We the people “ it has failed and “We the people need to act”.

One group of “We the people “ felt that the government failed them and started rioting, looting, burning and assaulting other people.

The government stood down.

Kyle Rittenhouse went out to defend the life, liberty and property (Jefferson’s original wording) of those being assaulted by the first group.

The people that verbally threatened to kill him, swung chains at him, ran him down when he tried to disengage and pointed a loaded gun at him were the aggressors. Rittenhouse obviously had reasons to act in self defense.

When Rittenhouse and those that he shot were all white, I can’t understand why this is supposed to be about race.

The press is pushing a false, sensationalized story to fit their agenda. Only those gullible, too lazy to ascertain the facts or too ignorant of the actual facts are falling for it.

I believe life, liberty & property was John Locke not Jefferson. Jefferson revised Locke's phrase.

[CID1990]

No thread is complete without klam dropping in with a logical fallacy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don’t like it because it’s true.

It is an opinion, and a poorly supported one at that.

No surprise that you share it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

I'm surprised at you! He shouldn't have been there, plain and simple. If Kenosha wants to let the town burn, then let it burn.

Now vigilantism is “shouldn’t have been there”?

Isn't vigilantism also defined as taking on law enforcement duties without legal authority? Is protecting businesses a law enforcement duty?

I don't think Kyle Rittenhouse should have been where he was but being there wasn't a crime, it was just stupid and foolish. I also don't think the rioters and looters, including the people he shot, should have been where they were.

The 20+ miles from home, crossing state lines argument is baloney. Kyle worked in Kenosha and had family in Kenosha. 2 of the 3 people he shot came from the Milwaukee area which is about twice as far from Kenosha as Antioch. The US/Mexico border is an arbitrary line but the Wisconsin/Illinois border matters?

[Col Hogan]

Now vigilantism is “shouldn’t have been there”?

Isn't vigilantism also defined as taking on law enforcement duties without legal authority? Is protecting businesses a law enforcement duty?

I don't think Kyle Rittenhouse should have been where he was but being there wasn't a crime, it was just stupid and foolish. I also don't think the rioters and looters, including the people he shot, should have been where they were.

The 20+ miles from home, crossing state lines argument is baloney. Kyle worked in Kenosha and had family in Kenosha. 2 of the 3 people he shot came from the Milwaukee area which is about twice as far from Kenosha as Antioch. The US/Mexico border is an arbitrary line but the Wisconsin/Illinois border matters?

There are at least three SCOTUS opinions that rule police do not have a duty to defend people…never mind property!!!

Where is it the law that citizens, defending property, are acting as law enforcement???

[Baldy]

You don’t like it because it’s true.

It is an opinion, and a poorly supported one at that.

No surprise that you share it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you use a quote from Trevor Noah to support your argument, you have no argument.

[UNI88]

Isn't vigilantism also defined as taking on law enforcement duties without legal authority? Is protecting businesses a law enforcement duty?

I don't think Kyle Rittenhouse should have been where he was but being there wasn't a crime, it was just stupid and foolish. I also don't think the rioters and looters, including the people he shot, should have been where they were.

The 20+ miles from home, crossing state lines argument is baloney. Kyle worked in Kenosha and had family in Kenosha. 2 of the 3 people he shot came from the Milwaukee area which is about twice as far from Kenosha as Antioch. The US/Mexico border is an arbitrary line but the Wisconsin/Illinois border matters?

There are at least three SCOTUS opinions that rule police do not have a duty to defend people…never mind property!!!

Where is it the law that citizens, defending property, are acting as law enforcement???

What if we change the word duty for responsibility or expected to? Whose responsibility is it to protect property? Who is expected to protect property? FTR, I don't really care if Rittenhouse was a vigilante or not. He acted in self-defense regardless of why he was there.

What Rittenhouse did was stupid, foolish and brave. Going into an incendiary situation knowing he was going to be outnumbered took some cajones.

[Gil Dobie]

So is it worse to be a vigilante or a rioter and looter?

[Ibanez]

I can admit that vigilante maybe isn't the best word...but the fact remains that he bought a gun illegally and then interjected himself into a powder keg. It wasn't a wise decision.

i challenge you to back up this statement!!!

Are 17 year olds allow to buy guns?

[GannonFan]

So is it worse to be a vigilante or a rioter and looter?

Depends on who's left standing and your political viewpoint.

[Ibanez]

I can admit that vigilante maybe isn't the best word...but the fact remains that he bought a gun illegally and then interjected himself into a powder keg. It wasn't a wise decision.

Rittenhouse didn't buy the gun. His friend bought it and is in trouble for a "straw purchase". Technicality, but still the truth.

In a phone interview with the Washington Post, Rittenhouse revealed the gun he used in the shooting was purchased using money he received from an unemployment check during the coronavirus pandemic. Rittenhouse, 17, could not legally purchase the weapon himself, so he gave the money to a friend to buy it for him, according to both Rittenhouse and police reports.

"I got my $1,200 from the coronavirus Illinois unemployment, because I was on furlough from YMCA, and I got my first unemployment check so I was like, 'Oh I'll use this to buy it,'" he told the Post.

Straw man purchase is right. He paid someone to buy him a gun that he couldn't legally own. I thought Star-Spangled conservatives were all about following the law.

[Ibanez]

So is it worse to be a vigilante or a rioter and looter?

Depends on who's left standing and your political viewpoint.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist

[Ibanez]

I'm surprised at you! He shouldn't have been there, plain and simple. If Kenosha wants to let the town burn, then let it burn.

Now vigilantism is “shouldn’t have been there”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say that at all. Those are two separate statements, knob.

[kalm]

Now vigilantism is “shouldn’t have been there”?

Isn't vigilantism also defined as taking on law enforcement duties without legal authority? Is protecting businesses a law enforcement duty?

I don't think Kyle Rittenhouse should have been where he was but being there wasn't a crime, it was just stupid and foolish. I also don't think the rioters and looters, including the people he shot, should have been where they were.

The 20+ miles from home, crossing state lines argument is baloney. Kyle worked in Kenosha and had family in Kenosha. 2 of the 3 people he shot came from the Milwaukee area which is about twice as far from Kenosha as Antioch. The US/Mexico border is an arbitrary line but the Wisconsin/Illinois border matters?

Good post.