Kyle Rittenhouse

[Exfarmer]

Eh ?

Rittenhouse was helping to defend a town from BLM riots. He was with a group of people stationed near a car dealership.

He was chased by rioters and attacked despite having an automatic weapon .. have you read this thread ?

Are you seriously suggesting it is a good idea to be placing 17 year old kids with a military grade sub machine gun in a riot situation where tempers and emotions will run very high.
I would go as far as to say he is a victim in the situation and those encouraging him should have been done for manslaughter or its equivalent.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Are you seriously suggesting it is a good idea to be placing 17 year old kids with a military grade sub machine gun in a riot situation where tempers and emotions will run very high.
I would go as far as to say he is a victim in the situation and those encouraging him should have been done for manslaughter or its equivalent.

Good on the chap for protecting law abiding citizens from Criminals.

Would have been far better that the Democrat Politicians which promoted rioting and murders were dealt with months before the incident - which included the President of the USA btw.

So let's hope we see a lot of the Democrat Party put in jail where they belong.

 

[SteveHants]

Are you seriously suggesting it is a good idea to be placing 17 year old kids with a military grade sub machine gun in a riot situation where tempers and emotions will run very high.
I would go as far as to say he is a victim in the situation and those encouraging him should have been done for manslaughter or its equivalent.

"Radicalised child commits multiple murders with semi-automatic weapon"

Child soldiers don't only exist in tinpot third world nations apparently.

 

[wanton dwarf]

"Radicalised child commits multiple murders with semi-automatic weapon"

Child soldiers don't only exist in tinpot third world nations apparently.

If the 17 year old had committed murder he would have been convicted as such.

Rattenhouse killed two radicalised criminal rioters who were egged on by Left Wing extremists in the Democratic Party - who promoted "Defund the Police".

Good riddance to the violent extremists.

 

[SteveHants]

If the 17 year old had committed murder he would have been convicted as such.

Rattenhouse killed two radicalised criminal rioters who were egged on by Left Wing extremists in the Democratic Party - who promoted "Defund the Police".

Good riddance to the violent extremists.

Far right vigilantes killing people in the interests of "protecting property"?

I suggest you go away and read a social history of Europe 1917-39. Pay particular attention to Italy and Germany.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

military grade sub machine gun

1: It wasn't a sub machine gun.
2: It wasn't military grade.

 

[Frankzy]

Could it be said that both of those people were also defending themselves from someone with a visible weapon?

...What? You can't attack someone out of self defence when he/she is only using violence to defend them self!
Or are you saying that anyone holding a gun is by default a lethal threat?

Are you seriously suggesting it is a good idea to be placing 17 year old kids with a military grade sub machine gun in a riot situation where tempers and emotions will run very high.
I would go as far as to say he is a victim in the situation and those encouraging him should have been done for manslaughter or its equivalent.

First off it's not military grade.
Secondly it is not a machine gun, nor is it an SMG, it's just a regular semi-auto rifle..
And thirdly if he hadn't been armed that situation would've ended with the death of an innocent 17 year old kid so with that in mind it really seems like a good idea.

 

[Exfarmer]

...What? You can't attack someone out of self defence when he/she is only using violence to defend them self!
Or are you saying that anyone holding a gun is by default a lethal threat?

First off it's not military grade.
Secondly it is not a machine gun, nor is it an SMG, it's just a regular semi-auto rifle..
And thirdly if he hadn't been armed that situation would've ended with the death of an innocent 17 year old kid so with that in mind it really seems like a good idea.

And what in your mind suggests, the victims would have attacked him if he was not brandishing a very serious weapon. They presumably did that as they assumed he was in fact targeting people.
I fully accept that he did not go there deliberately to kill people, but the job of guarding the property in any civilised society belongs to the police.

 

[ollie989898]

The kid shot one person, and then fled for his life after recognising the crowd were basically going to beat him to death. That he didn't end up dead was pure chance in reality. It is a miracle the whole thing didn't descend into a shoot out with multiple victims and about half a dozen court cases.

I don't see how anyone could possibly be claiming the trial as a victory. The kid himself looks to have had a rough time of it despite being found innocent.

No courthouse in the world will stop a bullet.

 

[Ashtree]

Pretty amazing the number of TFF’rs who seem to support the gun toting, vigilantism of this case! Then again, perhaps is a matter of plain old “keyboard warriorism”, coming from marshmallow types, who wouldn’t be seen for dust, if a call to arms was necessary. Just sayin…

 

[Exfarmer]

1: It wasn't a sub machine gun.
2: It wasn't military grade.

...What? You can't attack someone out of self defence when he/she is only using violence to defend them self!
Or are you saying that anyone holding a gun is by default a lethal threat?

First off it's not military grade.
Secondly it is not a machine gun, nor is it an SMG, it's just a regular semi-auto rifle..
And thirdly if he hadn't been armed that situation would've ended with the death of an innocent 17 year old kid so with that in mind it really seems like a good idea.

According to all definitions a sub machine gun is a weapon which fires multiple rounds from a magazine.
The term “assault rifle” is actually a long barreled SMG. SMG’s are notoriously inaccurate because of their short barrels
The weapon Ritter had , which was not legal for him to own, had a magazine and he fired 4 rounds in .75 seconds.
He admitted in his case he shot the first man because he was scared the man was going to sieize the gun and shoot him in return.
The second man grabbed the gun when in terror Ritterhouse pulled the trigger long enough to discharge 4 rounds. It was only the third man who pointed a gun at him, who he shot but only wounded.
He was like a rat in a cage biting in all directions in his panic. He should never have been their, he should never have had the gun, by his own admission he panicked when the first man tried to size the gun

 

[Mek]

Had he not been there with a gun two people with families would be alive today. To say that he shot because he was afraid for his life is ridiculous. He should not have been there with a gun.

 

[linga]

Had he not been there with a gun two people with families would be alive today. To say that he shot because he was afraid for his life is ridiculous. He should not have been there with a gun.

But under American law he was allowed to be there with a gun seemingly.

 

[ollie989898]

Pretty amazing the number of TFF’rs who seem to support the gun toting, vigilantism of this case! Then again, perhaps is a matter of plain old “keyboard warriorism”, coming from marshmallow types, who wouldn’t be seen for dust, if a call to arms was necessary. Just sayin…

I must say that I would be a real deal brand of chicken-s%*t if it was me- there is no way I would voluntarily enter a situation where my life was even remotely in danger because an angry mob is threatening to torch or destroy a fudging car dealership. It is all insured anyway and who wants to die over a bit of metal? Fudge that.

 

[Guleesh]

Why are you lot still speculating what happened? The court case is finished and he's been found not guilty, I'm guessing pretty much the whole court case is on youtube including all the evidence (all filmed from various angles). I watched quite a few hours worth last night actually and have to admit that I agree with the jury decision.

Seems to me that many are just accepting the verdict that the trial by media had concluded some time ago. but remember he was on trial for murder, it wasn't a debate concerning US gun laws or politics. If you don't agree with American gun laws that's fine, but I don't see what it has to do with this trial verdict.

I think some of you need to research what happened on the night before coming on here with your outrage.

 

[br jones]

So as I read it ,the 4 people in this case we're all miles from home ,some were rioting ,thieving and setting stuff on fire,
Some were trying to protect people's property ,3 people who were miles from home got shot by a chap who was also miles from home ,


Shame he didn't shoot a few more rioting looters

 

[ollie989898]

Why are you lot still speculating what happened? The court case is finished and he's been found not guilty, I'm guessing pretty much the whole court case is on youtube including all the evidence (all filmed from various angles). I watched quite a few hours worth last night actually and have to admit that I agree with the jury decision.

Seems to me that many are just accepting the verdict that the trial by media had concluded some time ago. but remember he was on trial for murder, it wasn't a debate concerning US gun laws or politics. If you don't agree with American gun laws that's fine, but I don't see what it has to do with this trial verdict.

I think some of you need to research what happened on the night before coming on here with your outrage.

No one is speculating here. I think the bulk of us are just looking on in amazement and saying WTF?

 

[Frankzy]

No one is speculating here. I think the bulk of us are just looking on in amazement and saying WTF?

Actually you are speculating and the the point we are trying to make is that if you had done more reading about it you wouldn't be saying WTF...
(Other than wondering WTF Kyle's attackers were thinking)

According to all definitions a sub machine gun is a weapon which fires multiple rounds from a magazine.
The term “assault rifle” is actually a long barreled SMG. SMG’s are notoriously inaccurate because of their short barrels
The weapon Ritter had , which was not legal for him to own, had a magazine and he fired 4 rounds in .75 seconds.
He admitted in his case he shot the first man because he was scared the man was going to sieize the gun and shoot him in return.
The second man grabbed the gun when in terror Ritterhouse pulled the trigger long enough to discharge 4 rounds. It was only the third man who pointed a gun at him, who he shot but only wounded.
He was like a rat in a cage biting in all directions in his panic. He should never have been their, he should never have had the gun, by his own admission he panicked when the first man tried to size the gun

There are so many errors/baseless speculation here I barely know where to start.
Right let's begin with your own speculation of what an SMG is: submachine guns are so named because they are a fully automatic gun firing sub-calibre ammunition compared to a regular machine gun.
Machine guns fire rifle ammunition which means submachine guns fires pistol ammunition. That is the real definition of an SMG, not whether it can fire more than one shot or not...

The weapon Rittenhouse carried can, with some massaging, be called an assault rifle but you are again wrong in assuming it's just a lengthened SMG. "Assault rifles" are incredibly accurate and they fire rifle ammunition, not pistol ammunition.

The gun was actually perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to carry on that day.

The first man (Rosenbaum) began the whole thing by, seemingly without provocation, trying to grapple Rittenhouse who started running away, Rosenbaum gave chase, a few seconds later a bystander fired into the air with a revolver which made Rittenhouse turn around. That's when he saw Rosenbaum still charging at him and so he fired.

You forgot to mention that the second man together with a group of other people had chased Rittenhouse for several blocks, and after tackling him to the ground started attacking him with kicks and a skateboard before trying to grab his gun...

Sure with hindsight everything would've changed for the better had he not been there but why pray tell do you say that he's the one who shouldn't have been there when he was the one being attacked? Surely he had the same right to be there as any of the rioters?
To be honest it's on the same level as telling a woman she shouldn't have walked outside alone...

 

[wanton dwarf]

Far right vigilantes killing people in the interests of "protecting property"?

I suggest you go away and read a social history of Europe 1917-39. Pay particular attention to Italy and Germany.

At least 25 people were killed in the 2020 riots in the USA.

In the USA people have the right to protect their property, which happens all the time.

I suggest you go read about Joseph Stalin and President Mao - who killed 10s of millions.

Then go and read how the National Socialist Party of Germany, who based their utopia on cheap food and cheap goods (Such as VW beetles), who also went on to kill millions. I guess it's inconveniant for Left Wingers to have that "Socialist" word but you cannot hide from the Socialist policies.

Also take great note that one citizen on trial is not a Political Party organising civil unrest - aka the Democratic Party.

 

[ollie989898]

At least 25 people were killed in the 2020 riots in the USA.

In the USA people have the right to protect their property, which happens all the time.

I suggest you go read about Joseph Stalin and President Mao - who killed 10s of millions.

Then go and read how the National Socialist Party of Germany, who based their utopia on cheap food and cheap goods (Such as VW beetles), who also went on to kill millions. I guess it's inconveniant for Left Wingers to have that "Socialist" word but you cannot hide from the Socialist policies.

Also take great note that one citizen on trial is not a Political Party organising civil unrest - aka the Democratic Party.

The idea of the average American trying to defend himself from a tyrannical government is a lark.