Kyle Rittenhouse Storms Off Stage After Being Confronted by Students

yep you did but a 500 round belt on such a weapon goes how fast? and the point was 700 rounds in a minute. It really is not relevant since private citizens can not acquire such a weapon

 

About 8 seconds.

Sure. I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. Having said that if it was up to you, anyone could have such firearms

 

tenth amendment-perhaps. second amendment-not really. its a weapon designed to attack an area and is pretty much worthless for self defense by a private citizen

 

I'd hardly classify Sheriff Beth's (Kenosha, WI) comments as "bullshit".

from Nov, 2020, before any charges against Rittenhouse, regarding deputization.

Beth, speaking during a press conference Wednesday, said he declined to do so, noting that if he did, those members would become "a liability to me and the county and the state of Wisconsin."

"There's no way. There's no way I would deputize people," he said.

Beth, who said his initial response was "oh hell no," added that such groups don't actually help police.

"Part of the problem with this group is they create confrontation," he said. "People walking around with guns - if I walk in my uniform with a gun all of you probably wouldn't be too intimated by it because you're used to officers having guns, but if I put out my wife with an AR-15 or my brother with a shotgun or whatever it would be walking through the streets you guys would probably wonder what the heck was going on."

 

Its not limited to only self defense. The 2A says its for "security of a free State".

 

Is it? I have never said any such thing, so perhaps your strawman is meant for someone else.

 

I do. many of these sheriffs pretend they are better trained and look down on private citizens being armed. They see armed citizens as a "statement" that the "professionals" aren't able to protect the public. KR needed to do what he did because LE dropped the ball that night

 

let's cut through the bullshit-do you think that private citizens should be able to own such a weapon?

 

I just watched it here, maybe 20 times or so: https://globalnews.ca/video/8362302...drone-video-shows-1st-shooting-at-close-range
From that video, it is not clear that the individual was even after KR, just that he was running behind him. It is not, to me, clearly that he was being assaulted, and right afterwards he ran back around the car instead of away.
Reminds me of the shooting in Texas, were there was a lot of "interpretation", but not clearly one way or another.
KR should not have been there with a weapon. Whether it was against the law or not. Because he wasn't a trained police officer, it amounted to being a vigilante.

 

Just keep on posting your untruths, and continue with the false narrative that idiots like Rittenhouse, who are untrained, and brandishing assault weapons, are good for society. A good police department is trained, not only on how to use firearms in a responsible manner, but also the best situations to exercise restraint.

But I'm sure your next post will say how you know so much better. Goodbye.

 

prove your claims that my assertions are untruths. For an UNTRAINED shooter-his hit ratio was PERFECT=-far better than MOST police officers. He also was JUSTIFIED in using LETHAL Force.

The funny thing is that your side of the aisle is the one that is quickest to criticize police-especially when they shoot black felons.

 

your understanding of what happens needs work. Plus, he is not a vigilante-he was a citizen exercising his lawful right of self defense. He was not punishing or shooting people who did not threaten him. And yes, he was smart to have a weapon, there were lots of violent mopes in his vicinity as proven by the fact that he was forced to shoot three of them

 

There is a strong odor of deflection in your post

 

yep, and some go to protests armed with an ar-15

in this case someone was fleeing an area with an ar-15

 

I don't see any answer from you and you are claiming I am deflecting? I have already said that for the federal government to ban such an item, the tenth amendment is in play. I don't think weapons like that are under the umbrella of the second amendment so if a state were to ban private citizens buying or possessing what is essentially a crew served machine gun, the state could do so since there are no tenth amendment issues at play. Since such a weapon is neither the standard individual weapon of a soldier/miliia member in service, nor one that any civilian law enforcement agencies normally would use, cuts against second amendment protection as well

 

I do agree with that. Most people who'd purchase such thing would collectors and such, but if a terrorist, domestic or foreign, got their hands on it and targeted a mass event like football game or concert, it would be nothing short of WMD.

 

I hope you're not the instructor for working on my understanding.
We'll start here, the definition of 'vigilante': https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=vigilante+definition
My point was that he, KR, should have stayed home. He owned no property, and wasn't even a resident of the state they were in, untrained, and had no idea what he was actually doing. He was looking to be some kind of hero. Why not just show up with his medical bag? Was he a trained EMT? No.
He was a nobody that had no business there, much less armed or pretending to be some medical professional.
That's my opinion. You may have a different opinion.

 

why do so many on the left constantly damn KR and claim he had no business being there but they NEVER EVER wonder why two felons were there to engage in rioting and worse?

 

They had served the punishments for their infractions, so why would they not be there, especially the 1st guy who was local to Kenosha? Such events are tailor made for felons. Chaos, action, noise, burning tires - its like a heaven for them.

 

You would have to ask someone from the "left". If you want to hear my opinion, the protesters had no business being there either, because if I'm not mistaken there was a curfew. I have no issue with protesting something, but it must be done in accordance with the law, which means respecting curfews, no damaging property or individuals, no blocking passages or roadways, etc.
The fact that they were felons alone doesn't play into it, but NONE of the protesters should have been out there at that time if there was a curfew, let alone starting fires, etc.
No one else was killed there that night. Which tells me that KR being there with a gun was an impetus to what happened. You're starting you analysis with a predisposed idea, rather than just looking at the facts and using critical thinking. That's why you responded to my post with "why do so many on the left...", I guess assuming I'm on the left rather than just accepting I'm calling it like I see it in regards to KR.
Should I assume that because you defend KR you must be a "righty" or Trump supporter or Republican, etc?
That's a poor way to debate, and usually unproductive.

 

Completely false. The FBI had a drone flying overhead which caught the first shooting on video. It was shown REPEATEDLY at the trial. The distance from the drone to the first shooting was enough to make the video hard to make out in great detail. The FBI blew up the pixels making it somewhat grainy. So the FBI used video clarification algorithms to clean up the video. The prosecution showed the raw video from high above the gas station not wanting to show the enhanced clearer video (raw embedded below). The defense tried to show the enhanced video and the prosecution objected claiming by enhancing and cleaning up the video they were "adding video content" which actually wasn't real. The judge overruled and said since the prosecution had opened up the subject by introducing the video in the first place giving the defense the absolute right to cross. The Prosecution would have the opportunity to challenge the FBI's expert videographer to reveal the nature of the video enhancement. To view the raw video from above you can google Rittenhouse Drone video or use the link below. The prosecutor did an abysmal job of trying to discredit the FBI's video expert. It was a mistake to even try as it gave the appearance he was afraid to let the jury see it. It added more weight than it otherwise might have had and made the Prosecutor look like he was hiding something.



The enhanced video was shown in court to the jury and shows SOMETHING in Joseph Rosenbaum's hand. You can't make out exactly what it is, but he definitely had something in his hand. He appeared to attempt to strike KR in the head with whatever it was. The overall facts are clear though. KR was running from Joseph Rosenbaum (clearly armed) and Joseph Rosenbaum continued to chase KR, JR caught up to KR when he got cornered/squeezed between cars. JR attempted to strike him with "something" in the head. KR dodged the strike and then shot him. At trial KR testified it was a "brick or something like a brick". KR stated his thoughts at the time were, he was being chased by several angry rioters and tried to run away. One of them continued to chase him screaming "I'm going to knock you the $%#@ out, Mother#$%@er! The prosecutor asked KR if he felt his life was in danger. KR then stated his reasoning was, if you are carrying what is obviously a rifle and people continue to chase and threaten you anyway, one then tries to strike you, it is likely potentially lethal. They never recovered the "brick". The nearby witness said he couldn't make out JR was yelling due to crowd noise. The defense brought up the fact KR didn't shoot the guy who didn't try to strike him, indicating he wasn't just going around shooting people. He shot the one idiot who apparently couldn't take a hint. You play stupid games you win stupid prizes.

 

had not one been dumb enough to take an ar-15 to that protest, imo, no one would have died

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/20/1057...ttenhouse-victims-rosenbaum-huber-grosskreutz

"The 36-year-old crossed paths with Rittenhouse in a used-car lot as Rittenhouse brandished an AR-15-style rifle. Rosenbaum, meanwhile, was unarmed and carried a plastic bag containing a toothbrush, toothpaste, socks, deodorant and some papers."

 

Rosenbaum's bag was his discharge bag from the mental institution he was released from earlier that day. He went from mental institution to committing arson and assaulting minors during a riot.

I don't agree with Rittenhouse being at the riot, but I don't have a problem with him being armed while doing so. Their goal was to stand on properties to help a car dealership. They were severely outnumbered, the rioters were armed and violent. Rittenhouse was obeying the law. I understand your desire to support the violent rioters and blame the victim, but that's not a mentality I personally subscribe to for personal morality reasons. People are free to victim blame if it helps make them feel more virtuous by defending a crazy pedophile attacking a minor. Who knows what Rosenbaum would have done to Rittenhouse after putting out his fire if he wasn't armed. I'm sure some "virtue signalers" would have loved to have found out.

Here's a brain teaser for you. If a deranged lunatic wasn't attacking minors while joining rioters in defense of an alleged rapist, attempting to kidnap a child while carrying a knife, "nobody would have died." But go ahead and blame the victim and not the violent arsonist who is completely at fault for the altercation. The minor is probably a Trump supporter so having a child molester get his hands on him is clearly the virtuous position.

 

That's not how laws regarding vigilantism function. You're accusing him of a crime he wasn't even tried for ffs.

Even the INCREDIBLY politically motivated DA didn't charge him that way.
See 2nd amendment, you have a right to wander around in public armed.

 

taking an ar-15 to a protest is stupid and dangerous