Kyle Rittenhouse speaking out against BLM at universities.

[Manimal]

You see that, Perez, you got my lovey face for that one.

 

[AustinBR]

This. If he owned the property, was working for a security company or was friends or family with them I would be more understanding. He wasn’t any of the above, he went there to be involved in the **** show. The car lots were more than capable of hiring a security company but they didn’t(probably because insurance claims paid more).

And then he left the property to go walk around the streets. Kind of hard to defend the auto lot if you're not even there.

Plus, what's he going to do if protesters came and start smashing cars at the lot? He has no arrest authority and he certainly couldn't shoot them for damaging the cars...

He said he was "patrolling" the street. From there, you assert he was looking for trouble and trying to "play cop." What do you mean by "play cop?" I play cop while armed all the time and I'm not out looking for trouble.

You have arrest authority. You have handcuffs and could legally put them on someone if you witnessed them committing a crime (or if you suspected that they did commit a crime).

What is he going to do on the street with an AR, mostly by himself? It was a dumb decision intentionally walking towards a crazed mob with an AR that inevitably some crazed mobster could try to take from him, forcing him to defend himself.

And there are some parts of playing cop that ordinary citizens can, and some would argue should, do. Namely keep innocent people safe from harm.

Sure, but in the totality of the situation, he, himself, by himself out on the streets won't be able to do much of anything against an angry mob.

Isn't that one of the justifications for constitutional carry laws? The city was trouble. Kyle didn't have to look for it.

He sure found it, though.

Anyone there who opposed the viewpoint of the mob had already found trouble, whether they were looking for it or not. He could have carried a handgun. He chose an AR. There are pros and cons to each. The AR could make him more of a target. But it can also serves as a deterrent. A handgun is easier to wield in close quarters but he likely wouldn't have had a lanyard to help retain it. And, in the holster, a handgun doesn't offer the same deterrence because it doesn't appear to be as threatening.

Not interested in debating the merits of an AR vs handgun. Each obviously has pros/cons, but I don't think it's relevant to the discussion.

Even unarmed, I would argue that going to "patrol" the streets near a group of nutjobs is a bad decision and recklessly opening oneself up to danger or risk.

 

[thperez1972]

And then he left the property to go walk around the streets. Kind of hard to defend the auto lot if you're not even there.

Plus, what's he going to do if protesters came and start smashing cars at the lot? He has no arrest authority and he certainly couldn't shoot them for damaging the cars...

You have arrest authority. You have handcuffs and could legally put them on someone if you witnessed them committing a crime (or if you suspected that they did commit a crime).

Are you asserting that he meant he had intentions of arresting people when he said "patrolling?"

What is he going to do on the street with an AR, mostly by himself? It was a dumb decision intentionally walking towards a crazed mob with an AR that inevitably some crazed mobster could try to take from him, forcing him to defend himself.


Sure, but in the totality of the situation, he, himself, by himself out on the streets won't be able to do much of anything against an angry mob.

Sure he could. He was armed in case it came down to being forced to use lethal force to defend innocent people, including himself, from the mob.

He sure found it, though.

Not interested in debating the merits of an AR vs handgun. Each obviously has pros/cons, but I don't think it's relevant to the discussion.

Even unarmed, I would argue that going to "patrol" the streets near a group of nutjobs is a bad decision and recklessly opening oneself up to danger or risk.

Standing up against mob = good. We as a society should discourage any type of protest like that.

Society discouraging protests like that is a great rallying cry but is generally meaningless in and of itself as it can only get you so far. Unless every violent protester spontaneously persuaded by your talk and decides to change their mind on protesting, talk alone cannot correct the problem. It's like the last mile problem. Amazon can build the most sophisticated efficient delivery system it wants to. But the last step will always come to one person bringing the package to one house. It takes individuals acting on behalf of society to actually accomplish things.

 

[Magdump]

What he did earlier in the day is irrelevant just as I don't care what he had for breakfast that day.

I have no problem with him helping "defend" someone's business.

My sole problem with what he did is that he went out, as per his testimony, to "patrol" the streets. I assert that he was out looking for trouble and trying to "play cop."

Again, I don't think his decision to go on "patrol" is illegal, but rather I believe it to have been a poor decision.

While "patrolling," words were had with criminal nutjob #1 who (likely) followed him back near the shop he was defending. An altercation then arose forcing him to defend himself. Had he just stayed at the shop and not gone walking around with his rifle, possibly painting a target on his head, he probably wouldn't be in the public eye at all.



You and I both know that's not what I said or even alluded to.


I didn't say that and you are intentionally taking my words out of context.

Standing up against mob = good. We as a society should discourage any type of protest like that.


Not at all. I think they did the right thing.

But they stayed at their house. They didn't grab rifles and start walking around their streets looking for trouble.


So you honestly don't think he provoked the attack against him in any way, at all?

Man I’m sorry, but you just strike me as cut from the same cloth as the folks we have always been at odds with over gun rights. You say the same things they say. Same opinions. I’m surprised you gave the McKlusky’s a pass, given they walked outside the safety of their home. That was the big gripe the media had. If my wife goes out in public wearing $20k worth of jewelry and she’s robbed, was she looking for trouble? If my teenaged daughter goes out alone in public in a short skirt and gets seks ually assaulted, is it her fault? Are you saying that Kyle was asking to be attacked? I don’t want to misunderstand you, for fork’s sake, but putting more emphasis on a legal activity than what this crowd of folks did is asinine and I’m just not buying it. There is no shared fault here. The court didn’t buy it either. That kind of thinking might fly with insurance companies and car crashes, but not in a criminal act. You may not think you’re saying it, but you’re excusing the attackers to a degree.
It has been determined that the first perve that attacked Kyle started that confrontation, followed him and ran him down. There was video evidence. I can see that you simply believe what you believe. I disagree.
Can I gather from your post that you simply do not agree with anyone standing up to a mob tearing down cities? Do you think we should all just stay at home if one of these groups comes for our city? I’m asking because that’s what it sounds like. If I’m wrong, then you’re flip flopping around like a fish on deck.
Personally, if I don’t have the backbone to walk out in public and let a mob know that there might just be a little more resistance waiting if they start destroying property, I’m not going to try to tell someone else that they’re wrong for trying.

 

[AustinBR]

Man I’m sorry, but you just strike me as cut from the same cloth as the folks we have always been at odds with over gun rights. You say the same things they say. Same opinions. I’m surprised you gave the McKlusky’s a pass, given they walked outside the safety of their home. That was the big gripe the media had.

Dude I am an admin on a gun website - clearly I'm very pro 2A. What I'm not a proponent of is people doing stupid things that just so happen to be legal.

I fully support folks being able to (legally) own/carry firearms of all types.

What I don't support is people doing dumb things with their firearms. It's just like how I think the "1st Amendment Auditors" are absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure everyone has seen videos, but these folks go out in public and just are absolute nuisances under the guise of showing their 1A rights.

There was a group of people in Baton Rouge that would open carry ARs and pistols to coffee shops and the likes just to show the world that they could. It made a lot of people uncomfortable and it was generally a bad look for the 2A crew.

If my wife goes out in public wearing $20k worth of jewelry and she’s robbed, was she looking for trouble? If my teenaged daughter goes out alone in public in a short skirt and gets seks ually assaulted, is it her fault? Are you saying that Kyle was asking to be attacked?

You can only blame criminals for doing criminal things, but at the same time, people absolutely can make poor decisions that increase the likelihood of them being a victim.

Leaving a $100 on your dashboard and parking it in a low-income area increases the chance of your car being broken into. It doesn't mean you were "asking to be robbed," but you sure did increase the chance of it.

When I have traveled to places in Africa and parts of Central America, the general guidance is to not wear expensive jewelry or carry a bunch of cash. Why? It makes you a target. It doesn't make it your fault or imply that you're asking to be attacked, but it absolutely increases the chances compared to someone else.

I am absolutely saying that Kyle was asking for more attention than someone else. He donned his AR and went on patrol and that made him more of a target for the criminals than someone else would have been.

I don’t want to misunderstand you, for fork’s sake, but putting more emphasis on a legal activity than what this crowd of folks did is asinine and I’m just not buying it. There is no shared fault here.

There is no legal shared fault. Kyle did not commit a crime. I have stated that from the beginning.

If you leave a stack of cash in plain view on your vehicle, you might not have legally done anything wrong, but you absolutely share some fault in your window being broken and your cash being stolen.

The court didn’t buy it either. That kind of thinking might fly with insurance companies and car crashes, but not in a criminal act. You may not think you’re saying it, but you’re excusing the attackers to a degree.

Not at all. They played stupid games and won stupid prizes, as they should have.

It has been determined that the first perve that attacked Kyle started that confrontation, followed him and ran him down. There was video evidence. I can see that you simply believe what you believe. I disagree.

I'm okay with disagreeing.

Can I gather from your post that you simply do not agree with anyone standing up to a mob tearing down cities? Do you think we should all just stay at home if one of these groups comes for our city? I’m asking because that’s what it sounds like. If I’m wrong, then you’re flip flopping around like a fish on deck.

My duty is to protect myself and my family. Going out to confront a mob could greatly hinder my ability to do so. Additionally, lethal force isn't okay to stop a mob and anytime someone goes somewhere with a firearm, they have to understand that someone could try to take it from them in the heat of a moment.

Gun owners should make better decisions and realize that they introduce a gun in every situation they're in.

Personally, if I don’t have the backbone to walk out in public and let a mob know that there might just be a little more resistance waiting if they start destroying property, I’m not going to try to tell someone else that they’re wrong for trying.

How would you resist them? What would you do?

 

[jdindadell]

Hmm, looks like we have a dilemma in the classic "time and place" argument.

You know, there is a time and a place for everything...

Seems cut and dry that rittenhouse was trying to help out in a need based situation.

patrolling does sound a bit "cop" but only cause that is how we are used to hearing that word. Military's use armed guards on patrol, and the word is not strictly linked to cops. He was "keeping watch"...

The lack of overall guidance or any real hierarchy in the situation is an issue, as his "keeping watch" was not going to be much use as he did not have anyone to report to, or help him out. So, yes, a dangerous move by a person who was not likely experienced enough to make a good choice.

However, as a realist, I must view his actions as the best he could do. He obviously felt strongly enough to show up, and I could never tell another man that he should do nothing, when we felt the need to do something. That would go against the life and liberty part that we all feel so strongly about.

Yeah, he ended up having to shoot people who were attacking him as a gang... Chasing down an armed man and attacking him by hand is not a very good idea, and the perp paid for that mistake. That's how I see it, again, as a realist. I know what "should" happen in these type of circumstances, but that's not what "does" happen...

And he is a known person know, and he has some experience in a matter that most of us have not experienced, yet we do prepare for. So he has value and that value will be leveraged, likely by both sides.

 

[Magdump]

Dude I am an admin on a gun website - clearly I'm very pro 2A.

Yeah? I wonder if you could give us a percentage of how pro 2A you actually are. I’m one of those 100% shall not be infringed guys, so you’ll just have to excuse my doubting you. I do think it’s funny all you came up with in your defense is that though. I laughed when I read that, thinking of Rachel Dolezal.

How would you resist them? What would you do?

I’m not going to tell someone else they’re wrong for trying. I’m also not going to say what I’d do on an open forum, but I do appreciate your efforts.

 

[AustinBR]

Yeah? I wonder if you could give us a percentage of how pro 2A you actually are. I’m one of those 100% shall not be infringed guys, so you’ll just have to excuse my doubting you. I do think it’s funny all you came up with in your defense is that though. I laughed when I read that, thinking of Rachel Dolezal.

I am not a shall not be infringed guy. Laws and limitations on personal freedoms exist for the betterment of society. In the case of weapons, I don't think the average joe should be able to possess a nuclear bomb, and I don't think you do, either. So, that's somewhat of an "infringement" on possessing weapons.

I’m not going to tell someone else they’re wrong for trying. I’m also not going to say what I’d do on an open forum, but I do appreciate your efforts.

Okay, well you brought it up, not me

 

[Magdump]

I am not a shall not be infringed guy. Laws and limitations on personal freedoms exist for the betterment of society. In the case of weapons, I don't think the average joe should be able to possess a nuclear bomb, and I don't think you do, either. So, that's somewhat of an "infringement" on possessing weapons.

Gotcha. Loud and clear. We’re all good now.

Okay, well you brought it up, not me

No buddy, we were talking about Rittenhouse. You tried to put me there.

 

[AustinBR]

No buddy, we were talking about Rittenhouse. You tried to put me there.

Personally, if I don’t have the backbone to walk out in public and let a mob know that there might just be a little more resistance waiting if they start destroying property, I’m not going to try to tell someone else that they’re wrong for trying.

You put yourself there, but okay.

 

[BluewaterLa]

When I was a young kid, there was lots of folks who open carried a pistol on their hip. It was common and no one gave it a second look or thought.
Society has been conditioned to think this act is bad, stupid or whatever one wants to label it. However you spin it its nothing but normal, the only thing that has changed is some brain washing and younger generations growing up only seeing police with pistols in a holster on the waist.
I'm not talking 80 years ago either. This would be in the 70's / 80's and early 90's before the stupid started really sinking in.

 

[Magdump]

You put yourself there, but okay.

No comprehension? If. It’s ok though. I have a handle on it now dude. No need to go on. Really.

 

[BluewaterLa]

No comprehension? If. It’s ok though. I have a handle on it now dude. No need to go on. Really.

View attachment 160947

Pretty sure that is supposed to be a horse but my first glance it looks like a humpless camel hahaha

 

[Manimal]

Pretty sure that is supposed to be a horse but my first glance it looks like a humpless camel hahaha

I thought it was a camel too, but what a great gif lol.

 

[Magdump]

better?

 

[AustinBR]

No comprehension? If. It’s ok though. I have a handle on it now dude. No need to go on. Really.

View attachment 160947

Ha, okay. You used the words "I" and "Personally" and then state we can't talk about your opinions.

Maybe write better.

 

[DMBJR1]

I am not a shall not be infringed guy. Laws and limitations on personal freedoms exist for the betterment of society. In the case of weapons, I don't think the average joe should be able to possess a nuclear bomb, and I don't think you do, either. So, that's somewhat of an "infringement" on possessing weapons.

While I am not an Admin on a gun forum (solid use of argument from authority), I do happen to know that the constitution says "shall not be infringed". But, hey, the guys that wrote that weren't Admins on a gun forum. Maybe we can run our rights by you before we choose to utilize any rights given to us by someone that is not an admin on a gun forum.

 

[DMBJR1]

And I did that whole quote thing all wrong apparently. Guess that is why I am not an admin on a gun forum

 

[thperez1972]

And I did that whole quote thing all wrong apparently. Guess that is why I am not an admin on a gun forum

I fixed it for you.

 

[DMBJR1]

I fixed it for you.

And that is why you are a staff member and I am not. I appreciate it.