Mens Tennis Forums banner
161 - 180 of 299 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #161 ·
right of self defense is not taken away if the person does not come with clean hands...for eg even a thief has right to kill the owner if the owner is causing apprehension of death or serious injury when the thief has clearly stopped being a threat..
As if the owner knows when the thief ceases to be a threat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #163 ·
What? Who is saying that? Everyone except the court?
Read your guy's post, fool

Not to say a 17 y/o guy should be roaming in the middle of riots with a rifle.
So the original intent was to cause harm as he was carrying an AR-15 which is typically used for mass killing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
So the original intent was to cause harm as he was carrying an AR-15 which is typically used for mass killing.
Dude, you're making assumptions about intent judging by what gun a person was carrying.

My impression about what @Ilkae is saying, is that he think Rittenhouse wasn't a suitable candidate to stand there with a gun. I doubt he would have a problem if police officer was there standing with the same gun. That being said, Rittenhouse is there and he breaks no laws being there AND MOST IMPORTANTLY he didn't deserve to be threatened, chased, attacked and pointed a gun at. Kyle Rittenhouse's conduct that night is what shows his intent.
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
55,677 Posts
This case also clearly shows legal does not mean moral or harmless.
It means if you're feeling threatened, you can use a gun on someone, because that's a constitutional right.
In Kyle's words, "it was self defense" and that he was unfairly prosecuted. It shouldn't have had to end up in that position. When can we resolve things without having to use a gun? Why is the gun the first resort in such a scenario?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
This case also clearly shows legal does not mean moral or harmless.
It means if you're feeling threatened, you can use a gun on someone, because that's a constitutional right.
In Kyle's words, "it was self defense" and that he was unfairly prosecuted. It shouldn't have had to end up in that position. When can we resolve things without having to use a gun? Why is the gun the first resort in such a scenario?
No it means that you don't realize what a man can do with his bare hands.

One guy recently released from mental asylum threatens to kill you, chases you, his buddy shoots in the air and you're going to do what exactly? Fist fight? Kyle did the sensible thing and ran away, unfortunately Rosenbaum caught him. What's he supposed to do?

Next sequence. He runs, trips over, one guy jump kicks him, the other one smacks him with a skateboard, 3rd one comes at you with his hands raised then suddenly points his gun at you. What's he supposed to do?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
Read your guy's post, fool



So the original intent was to cause harm as he was carrying an AR-15 which is typically used for mass killing.
Wrong. This doesn't say anything about his intent.

"Not to say a 17 y/o guy should be roaming in the middle of riots with a rifle" = He is a non-prosessional, and even an inexperienced one as a non-professional regarding such volatile/tumultuous situations. He doesn't have the training and experience on how to best conduct oneself in these kind of situations, nor the formal authority provided by a professional position (uniform etc. insignia), nor the group force that a joint unit of riot polices have, all of which would act as a repellent (against 'Rosenbaums'). Nor was he the biggest guy.

Thus, all these factors increase the likelihood that he could get into trouble. Nothing about his intentions being to look for trouble, but about an increased likelihood that he could get into trouble.

Guy should've been at home doing his homework or playing games or whatnot 17 y/o's generally do. Doesn't change the fact he acted in self-defense. Try to wrap your head around this. I don't care for sophistry.

--

Dude, you're making assumptions about intent judging by what gun a person was carrying.

My impression about what @Ilkae is saying, is that he think Rittenhouse wasn't a suitable candidate to stand there with a gun. I doubt he would have a problem if police officer was there standing with the same gun. That being said, Rittenhouse is there and he breaks no laws being there AND MOST IMPORTANTLY he didn't deserve to be threatened, chased, attacked and pointed a gun at. Kyle Rittenhouse's conduct that night is what shows his intent.
Yes, that's exactly my point. Rittenhouse was ill-equipped for these circumstances (certainly not the only one ill-equipped). Doesn't change the facts regarding what transpired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #168 · (Edited)
Dude, you're making assumptions about intent judging by what gun a person was carrying.

My impression about what @Ilkae is saying, is that he think Rittenhouse wasn't a suitable candidate to stand there with a gun. I doubt he would have a problem if police officer was there standing with the same gun. That being said, Rittenhouse is there and he breaks no laws being there AND MOST IMPORTANTLY he didn't deserve to be threatened, chased, attacked and pointed a gun at. Kyle Rittenhouse's conduct that night is what shows his intent.
There's no case for self defense when you carry an AR-15 into a protest rally and then turn it on the crowd when they turn violent because the original intent of the perpetrator is to cause mass harm. If he was carrying a pistol or a glock his self defense shtick would've had some credibility. But now he is culpable. Add in the circumstantial stuff like he held white supremo signs so is a proven white supremo, his goose is cooked. The self defense case shouldve been thrown out based on his original intent to cause mass harm.

The 2nd amendment allows you to own a rocket launcher. Does that mean you take it to a protest rally ? Is that justified? Get real.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
This case also clearly shows legal does not mean moral or harmless.
It means if you're feeling threatened, you can use a gun on someone, because that's a constitutional right.
In Kyle's words, "it was self defense" and that he was unfairly prosecuted. It shouldn't have had to end up in that position. When can we resolve things without having to use a gun? Why is the gun the first resort in such a scenario?
The scenario specifically was a chaotic one. Places burning, people (including Rosenbaum; evidence on that shown) acting aggressively, shots being fired. Rittenhouse did shout 'friendly, friendly, friendly' at Rosenbaum, but the guy was adamant in chasing him. If you look at videos of the incident, they traveled a good distance, Rosenbaum slowly closing in on Rittenhouse.

I've already posted this a few times, but again the words of Rittenhouse's defense lawyer:
Ladies and gentlemen, you sat through almost 10 days of testimony. You’ve heard the openings, most of the closings. And I have yet to hear Mr. Binger explain why Joseph Rosenbaum had the right to chase my client.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
No it means that you don't realize what a man can do with his bare hands.

One guy recently released from mental asylum threatens to kill you, chases you, his buddy shoots in the air and you're going to do what exactly? Fist fight? Kyle did the sensible thing and ran away, unfortunately Rosenbaum caught him. What's he supposed to do?

Next sequence. He runs, trips over, one guy jump kicks him, the other one smacks him with a skateboard, 3rd one comes at you with his hands raised then suddenly points his gun at you. What's he supposed to do?
Highlighted bit: indeed.

Arbery case shares similarities: Arbery (like Rittenhouse) tried to flee as he was being chased. He was eventually caught and shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #171 · (Edited)
Wrong. This doesn't say anything about his intent.

"Not to say a 17 y/o guy should be roaming in the middle of riots with a rifle" = He is a non-prosessional, and even an inexperienced one as a non-professional regarding such volatile/tumultuous situations. He doesn't have the training and experience on how to best conduct oneself in these kind of situations, nor the formal authority provided by a professional position (uniform etc. insignia), nor the group force that a joint unit of riot polices have, all of which would act as a repellent (against 'Rosenbaums'). He was neither the biggest guy.

Thus, all these factors increase the likelihood that he could get into trouble. Nothing about his intentions being to look for trouble, but about an increased likelihood that he could get into trouble.

Guy should've been at home doing his homework or playing games or whatnot 17 y/o's generally do. Doesn't change the fact he acted in self-defense. Try to wrap your head around this. I don't care for sophistry.
Oh poor kid didn't know how to use a rocket launcher like a professional does so he innocently took it with him to a protest rally and opened fire at the crowd in order to defend himself because you know the 2nd amendment allows you to carry any weapon so it's justified.
Do you realise how ridiculous your logic of self defense is? Do you see how shaky the foundation of your entire argument that the type of weapon does not indicate intent is? Do you also see that you're being the sophist here being the apologist for this deranged fellow? I have no time for YOUR sophistry indeed.

And goodluck explaining your sensational logic to the families of the departed. I suggest wearing a good hockey mask cause that will prevent you from getting your teeth kicked out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
There's no case for self defense when you carry an AR-15 into a protest rally and then turn it on the crowd when they turn violent because the original intent of the perpetrator is to cause mass harm. If he was carrying a pistol or a glock his self defense shtick would've had some credibility. But now he is culpable. Add in the circumstantial stuff like he held white supremo signs so is a proven white supremo, his goose is cooked. The self defense case shouldve been thrown out based on his original intent to cause mass harm.

The 2nd amendment allows you to own a rocket launcher. Does that mean you take it to a protest rally ? Is that justified? Get real.
Maybe in your head there isn't. Everywhere else - it is.

He never turned it to the crowd. He was walking down the street pointing his gun to the ground.

There's nothing to address regarding your white supremo nonsense.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
Oh poor kid didn't know how to use a rocket launcher so he innocently took it with him to a protest rally and opened fire at the crowd. Do you realise how ridiculous your logic of self defense is? Do you see how shaky the foundation of your entire argument is? Do you also see that you're being the sophist here being the apologist for this deranged fellow?
Nothing of the kind took place here (opening fire at a crowd). Rittenhouse only engaged people who had attacked him; situations where his life could be deemed to be in danger. The fact that in the 2nd situation after people had backed off, he didn't continue firing at anyone but instead got up and went to turn himself in, again clearly indicates self defense.

Calling him an active shooter or sth is pathetic / detached from reality.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
[...]

And goodluck explaining your sensational logic to the families of the departed. I suggest wearing a good hockey mask cause that will prevent you from getting your teeth kicked out.
I'm sure they followed the trial so nothing new I would have to explain to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #175 ·
Nothing of the kind took place here (opening fire at a crowd). Rittenhouse only engaged people who had attacked him; situations where his life could be deemed to be in danger. The fact that in the 2nd situation after people had backed off, he didn't continue firing at anyone but instead got up and went to turn himself in, again clearly indicate self defense.

Calling him an active shooter or sth is pathetic / detached from reality.
Ofcourse he's going to claim self defense after killing a bunch of people and maiming another. What else is he going to claim, that he's a blood thirsty murderer? The self defense argument should've been thrown out based on his intent and his intent was to cause mass harm. Carrying the AR-15 clearly proves that. He wasn't being deputed to Afghanistan to carry a weapon capable of such deadly force. Any normal person who was trying to protect himself from violent protestors would've just carried a glock. Most people who didnt have any violent intent in mind wouldn't have even carried a weapon, 2nd amendment or not.

His rehearsed breakdown at the verdict, the white supremacist signs in one of his videos, the call out to Biden in his Tucker Carlson interview instead of expressing his sorrow for the victims only adds to his culpability. You acting like he's some innocent kid is a mischaracterization of his true nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #176 ·
For the uninitiated - The AR-15 is capable of firing 400 rounds a minute and that is without bump stocks. Would you carry a weapon like this to a protest rally and then turn around and claim self defense when you kill a protestor who attacks you? Goodluck with that. At the very least you are equally culpable as the attacker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,894 Posts
My impression about what @Ilkae is saying, is that he think Rittenhouse wasn't a suitable candidate to stand there with a gun. I doubt he would have a problem if police officer was there standing with the same gun.
Huh. I cannot speak for Ilkae, but the sight of the police carrying automatic weapons designed for use by soldiers in war zones is a blatant sign of excessive police powers. It would at a minimum provide substantial strength to the argument for defunding the police. I acknowledge that this objection might make less sense for anyone living in a country with a long tradition of shitty gendarmerie style policing, where it is normal for the state to give guns to thugs to enforce its mandates.

The blame for the fatalities in Kenosha lies in no small measure with the police for deliberately forcing a large group of protesters into the same area as the armed militia men. Any half-decent policing regime would seek to maintain public order by keeping protesters and counter-protests in separate areas, rather than confining them into a small pressure bubble and facilitating a confrontation between them. The same thing happened at the 2017 neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #178 ·
I'm sure Rambo would've taken a pistol to the protest march because unlike Kittenhouse, John is a hero.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
Ofcourse he's going to claim self defense after killing a bunch of people and maiming another. What else is he going to claim, that he's a blood thirsty murderer? The self defense argument should've been thrown out based on his intent and his intent was to cause mass harm. Carrying the AR-15 clearly proves that. He wasn't going to war. Any normal person who was trying to protect himself from violent protestors would've just carried a glock. Most people who didnt have any violent intent in mind wouldn't have even carried a weapon, 2nd amendment or not.

His rehearsed breakdown at the verdict, the white supremacist signs in one of his videos, the call out to Biden in his Tucker Carlson interview instead of expressing his sorrow for the victims only adds to his culpability. You acting like he's some innocent kid is a mischaracterization of his true nature.
First of all, again, the chain of events in the case in question show that he reacted to being attacked. This is what the case was about and the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that this is what happened.

About his intent for going to Kenosha... Even if it would've been to go and simply shoot people (of which there is no evidence; of this intent I mean), he didn't carry through with this (i.e. he didn't start shooting people at will; nor did he threaten anyone to get them to attack him in self-defense; instead he was being chased by Rosenbaum for a considerable distance while shouting 'friendly' multiple times).

In terms of his actual intentions... Based on testimonies and evidence, Rittenhouse went there to defend the car dealerships; this proposition was made by Dominick Black's friend I believe, who had worked at that car dealership before. You insist that the AR-15 is proof that his intent was to go and kill people. To which I've noted several times now that there were also a bunch of other people carrying rifles and whatnot. 2nd amendment. His friend Dominick Black being one. Without a doubt also guys with violent backgrounds and criminal records. For example members of paramilitary and extremist groups such as the Boogaloo Boys were there. Yet according to you Rittenhouse was the one among them looking to execute people, based on the fact that he came there armed with an AR-15, like many others.

Nothing more to add at this point (what hasn't already been hashed). That a person would be sentenced for imagined intentions, or his /her persona and background instead of their actions is not how the legal system works. You need evidence to establish the intentions and actions beyond reasonable doubt. Hoping for people to be thrown in jail based solely on one's personal desires or whims is unbelievable/shocking.

--

As for me acting like he's an innocent kid; you're the one mischaracterizing. I've only spoken about the incident, whether based on evidence IMO he was guilty or not of the things he was being accused of (in terms of which I think he is innocent). In terms of his persona and character: poorly guided/parented comes to mind. Simply the fact alone that a 17 y/o kid decides to go in the middle of riots wielding a rifle. Also the fact that he has been seen mingling with the Proud Boys (a group known to resort to violence and having ties with white supremacists). Not the best of influences, and not the direction (= extremism) I would wish anyone's kid to be headed towards.

--

The armed groups that materialized in Kenosha appeared to span a range of motivations. Some were highly ideological, including members of the anarchic far-right Boogaloo movement, who could be seen in footage from several nights placing themselves between demonstrators and the police and guarding private property. Others saw themselves as simply defending local businesses or providing a sort of heavily armed neighborhood watch in the absence of an overstretched police department.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #180 · (Edited)
First of all, again, the chain of events in the case in question show that he reacted to being attacked. This is what the case was about and the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that this is what happened.

About his intent for going to Kenosha... Even if it would've been to go and simply shoot people (of which there is no evidence; of this intent I mean), he didn't carry through with this (i.e. he didn't start shooting people at will; nor did he threaten anyone to get them to attack him in self-defense; instead he was being chased by Rosenbaum for a considerable distance while shouting 'friendly' multiple times).

In terms of his actual intentions... Based on testimonies and evidence, Rittenhouse went there to defend the car dealerships; this proposition was made by Dominick Black's friend I believe, who had worked at that car dealership before. You insist that the AR-15 is proof that his intent was to go and kill people. To which I've noted several times now that there were also a bunch of other people carrying rifles and whatnot. 2nd amendment. His friend Dominick Black being one. Without a doubt also guys with violent backgrounds and criminal records. For example members of paramilitary and extremist groups such as the Boogaloo Boys were there. Yet according to you Rittenhouse was the one among them looking to execute people, based on the fact that he came there armed with an AR-15, like many others.

Nothing more to add at this point (what hasn't already been hashed). That a person would be sentenced for imagined intentions, or his /her persona and background instead of their actions is not how the legal system works. You need evidence to establish the intentions and actions beyond reasonable doubt. Hoping for people to be thrown in jail based solely on one's personal desires or whims is unbelievable/shocking.

--

As for me acting like he's an innocent kid; you're the one mischaracterizing. I've only spoken about the incident, whether based on evidence IMO he was guilty or not of the things he was being accused of (in terms of which I think he is innocent). In terms of his persona and character: poorly guided/parented comes to mind. Simply the fact alone that a 17 y/o kid decides to go in the middle of riots wielding a rifle. Also the fact that he has been seen mingling with the Proud Boys (a group known to resort to violence and having ties with white supremacists). Not the best of influences, and not the direction (= extremism) I would wish anyone's kid to be headed towards.

--
The others you talk about didn't kill anyone so let's not talk about them because then you're just deflecting. Noone told Rittenhouse to copy them. So, let's stick to the accused and in this case it was Rittenhouse parading his gun at everyone and when they attacked him he opened fire with an AR-15 in a crowded area which is ridiculous. God knows how many more could've died that day. If others did that then they should be thrown in jail too. It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment rather the intent of the troublemaker. He should've stuck to a pistol if he was so worried about his personal wellbeing.

You keep saying it's based on my personal desire. I don't even know this lunatic, so what personal bias do I have? Just because I disagree with your take doesn't mean I have a personal bias. Grow up.

I don't buy the poor parenting excuse. That's just an excuse. There are kids who have had poor parenting and they became great people, some became serial killers. So it's an excuse. You yourself said he was mixed with the Proud boys. That makes it even more damning so the self defense is just an excuse.

I find it appalling that this kid who got off easy went on Tucker and goes off against Biden. That just shows he's culpable and doesn't offer any regard to the grieving families. Dude take your win and go home, don't rub it in with chumps like Tucker Carlson.

The right response should've been "Hey Tucker I just want to say I feel sorry for the families and I don't want to blame anyone for my actions even if they were in self defense. I wish that noone got killed." Instead he went on a right wing rant so he is guilty. The right celebrating this guy's release are deplorable.
 
161 - 180 of 299 Posts
Top