I don't get it?

[dadofthree]

if cops would of done their job he would of never been there.

lol

So a few cops got together over coffee and doughnuts and decided not to do their job ‍

 

[1busa]

17-year-olds in the military are highly supervised, no?

Negative Arch.... my birthday is in August and I tested into kindergarten at 4. Had to have my Mom sign a waiver allowing me to join Marine Corps at 17. Went to boot camp, MCT, MOS school and was in the Fleet before my 18th birthday. Nobody knew nobody cared.... I was a Marine and treated the same as everyone else. Only thing I couldn’t do was walk in the PX and buy booze

 

[fallenarch]

Negative Arch.... my birthday is in August and I tested into kindergarten at 4. Had to have my Mom sign a waiver allowing me to join Marine Corps at 17. Went to boot camp, MCT, MOS school and was in the Fleet before my 18th birthday. Nobody knew nobody cared.... I was a Marine and treated the same as everyone else. Only thing I couldn’t do was walk in the PX and buy booze

That was my point friend. Everyone in the military is supervised.

 

[1busa]

That was my point friend. Everyone in the military is supervised.

How was I supervised? You know how many DUI’s there are every weekend on post? How many bar fights, how many pop for smoking dope? Nobody is supervised Arch.... you do a job no different than anywhere else and when your off work the only person watching you is YOU

 

[fallenarch]

In my experience, when you are armed and on duty, you are supervised. Obviously what you do when off duty is not controlled.

 

[Bumblebee]

How was I supervised? You know how many DUI’s there are every weekend on post? How many bar fights, how many pop for smoking dope? Nobody is supervised Arch.... you do a job no different than anywhere else and when your off work the only person watching you is YOU

A 17 yr old military member has certain codes of discipline to answer to where a 17 yr old civilian does not.

I joined at 17 as well in the early '80s and you weren't just running around and do as you please especially in those days.

Even now (at least in our military) each and every member answers to the "code of service discipline" and are responsible for your conduct both on and off duty. Things still happen but far less than the equivalent percentage of civilians and if you are a serving member, the penalties for stupidity triple.

 

[Bumblebee]

If you watch even clips of trial. It looks like his friend bought the gun for him and it never went home. Parts of the world are just different during hunting season I had multiple guns in my car all the time when i was 16.

You can talk about he shouldn’t of been there. But he did nothing illegal. Only way he gets convicted is if all the jurors convict him is out of fear from all the death threats. DOES anyone’s disagrees if the police did their job and protected the community the citizens wouldn not of had to do their job.

He may or may not have done anything illegal (time will tell) I would wager there will be considerations taken into the fact he didn't NEED to be there so armed, he was not part of any organized armed security force. Just the presence of a slung long gun would be part of the intimidation factor he was using to project violence.

I guess the jury will decide his fate....when someone takes the law and use of deadly force into their hands, they get what they deserve-both good and bad.

If a police officer would have had this same thing happen to them, they would be hung out to dry in an instant.

 

[Mythos]

He may or may not have done anything illegal (time will tell) I would wager there will be considerations taken into the fact he didn't NEED to be there so armed, he was not part of any organized armed security force. Just the presence of a slung long gun would be part of the intimidation factor he was using to project violence.

What I'm hearin now is that Rittenhouse was legally carrying a legal weapon and it was legal for him to do so at the demonstration. If the purpose of his being there armed was to protect property using deadly force, it would not have been legal for him to do that. I think his real reason for being there armed was to counter-demonstrate the violent protest by using the threat of violence. If he had actually carried out any violent acts against the protest, he would be going to prison. As it turned out, he used his weapon to defend himself against attack which indirectly validated his purpose for going to the protest armed. He acted in selfdefense but that also allowed him to legally shoot protestors. It was more of an accident that turned out very much in his favor. I will be surprised if he isn't acquitted. By the law, Rittenhouse did nothing wrong even though everything he did violates common sense.

 

[Bumblebee]

What I'm hearin now is that Rittenhouse was legally carrying a legal weapon and it was legal for him to do so at the demonstration. If the purpose of his being there armed was to protect property using deadly force, it would not have been legal for him to do that. I think his real reason for being there armed was to counter-demonstrate the violent protest by using the threat of violence. If he had actually carried out any violent acts against the protest, he would be going to prison. As it turned out, he used his weapon to defend himself against attack which indirectly validated his purpose for going to the protest armed. He acted in selfdefense but that also allowed him to legally shoot protestors. It was more of an accident that turned out very much in his favor. I will be surprised if he isn't acquitted. By the law, Rittenhouse did nothing wrong even though everything he did violates common sense.

....and there's the problem which will have anti-gun activists go nuts (not that they'd get anywhere but will annoy the crap out of everyone).

You have to wonder in what kind of world you guys live in when it is a normal thing for a (17 yr old) civilian to sling carry an AR15 and nobody raises an eyebrow, then for that civilian to attend a potentially violent protest and expect to not (at some point) use this deadly force against other civilians...

Just kike the thread title says "I don't get it"

 

[busabobh]

What I don't get in the Kyle Rittenhouse murders is how someone can illegally put themself in a risky situation and then claim self-defense. For example, if I take a weapon into a bank and try to rob it, I can't claim self-defense when I return fire at a guard and kill a customer. Clearly walking through a riot with an AR-15 in a sling is inherently provocative. Further, Kyle testified he went to Wisconsin to protect people's property. Yet he also admits that the law does not allow you to shoot someone to protect property.

The judge is allowing the defense to enter testimony on Kyle's state of mind leading up to the shooting but not allowing the prosecutor to focus on anything but the moment of the shooting. Taken out of context, yes Kyle was acting in self-defense, but he put himself in that position, was the provocateur, and did so illegally in several ways as a minor.

I don’t see it as you do. Riots are legal? Chasing someone with a gun, and hitting him with a skateboard isn’t provocative? Did not the rioters put them selves on their position? I hate rioters, and hurting guiltless people, and destruction of property. This kid may be wrong, but the ones he shoot were not choir boys.

 

[Mythos]

You have to wonder in what kind of world you guys live in when it is a normal thing for a (17 yr old) civilian to sling carry an AR15 and nobody raises an eyebrow, then for that civilian to attend a potentially violent protest and expect to not (at some point) use this deadly force against other civilians...

We have a law that allows the open carry of firearms for personal protection. You can have those firearms where firearms are permitted at lawful public events. If the public event results in a riot, you're more likely to require personal protection. It does all seem rather absurd.

I don’t see it as you do. Riots are legal? Chasing someone with a gun, and hitting him with a skateboard isn’t provocative? Did not the rioters put them selves on their position? I hate rioters, and hurting guiltless people, and destruction of property. This kid may be wrong, but the ones he shoot were not choir boys.

The riots were not legal but the demonstration was legal. I wasn't there but I assume there were a lot of people who were demonstrating without rioting as was the case with demonstrations throughout the summer.

 

[Mythos]

What I don't get in the Kyle Rittenhouse murders is how someone can illegally put themself in a risky situation and then claim self-defense. For example, if I take a weapon into a bank and try to rob it, I can't claim self-defense when I return fire at a guard and kill a customer. Clearly walking through a riot with an AR-15 in a sling is inherently provocative. Further, Kyle testified he went to Wisconsin to protect people's property. Yet he also admits that the law does not allow you to shoot someone to protect property.

The judge is allowing the defense to enter testimony on Kyle's state of mind leading up to the shooting but not allowing the prosecutor to focus on anything but the moment of the shooting. Taken out of context, yes Kyle was acting in self-defense, but he put himself in that position, was the provocateur, and did so illegally in several ways as a minor.

Had Rittenhouse gone to a bank to rob it at gunpoint and shot people who attempted to apprehend him, he would have had the intent to commit a crime with his gun. I presume that would preclude any claim he would have to using the gun for self defense during the robbery. If he simply walked into the bank and robbed it with the AR15 he was licensed to carry slung over his shoulder, there might be an argument that it was not an armed robbery. It was a strong arm robbery in conjunction with bringing a firearm into a bank which I believe is also illegal even if you have a permit to carry the weapon. Once it's clear to a guard a person presents a threat in a bank, I don't believe there would be any such thing as self defense because the guard is there to apprehend such people. If you could prove the guard was placing your life in immanent danger when you presented no threat, you might not be charged with murder if you shot and killed him. You still would face charges for bringing a gun into the bank.

How it all worked was that Rittenhouse didn't commit a crime with his gun by going to the demonstration. It was risky but it wasn't illegal.

"Taken out of context, yes Kyle was acting in self-defense, but he put himself in that position, was the provocateur, and did so illegally in several ways as a minor."

I agree but I don't know that his being a minor was an issue other than that he might have been out past a curfew for juveniles. He had a permit to open carry a weapon and the weapon was legal to carry in Kenosha, I presume. If not he would be in some very hot water right now. The people he shot took the bait. He appeared to try to avoid them but they kept chasing. The AR-15 was legal for him to carry. They attacked him and he defended himself. He did not attack demonstrators, he defended himself against people at the demonstration. Of course, that's how it looks on paper but everyone knows there's at least a little more to the story that the law can't cover. At the greatest extreme, did Rittenhouse have a plan to draw demonstrators in so he could lawfully kill them? It certainly looks like he had all the right things happen to make it appear that the shootings were self defense. ...or were they really was self defense?

 

[FlatlandBusa]

What I don't get in the Kyle Rittenhouse murders is how someone can illegally put themself in a risky situation and then claim self-defense. For example, if I take a weapon into a bank and try to rob it, I can't claim self-defense when I return fire at a guard and kill a customer. Clearly walking through a riot with an AR-15 in a sling is inherently provocative. Further, Kyle testified he went to Wisconsin to protect people's property. Yet he also admits that the law does not allow you to shoot someone to protect property.

The judge is allowing the defense to enter testimony on Kyle's state of mind leading up to the shooting but not allowing the prosecutor to focus on anything but the moment of the shooting. Taken out of context, yes Kyle was acting in self-defense, but he put himself in that position, was the provocateur, and did so illegally in several ways as a minor.

Using your logic, security guards and police officers shouldn't be armed, both of these professions put themselves in harms way daily. Any American Citizen has the right to defend themself.

 

[Mathewrussell52]

He may or may not have done anything illegal (time will tell) I would wager there will be considerations taken into the fact he didn't NEED to be there so armed, he was not part of any organized armed security force. Just the presence of a slung long gun would be part of the intimidation factor he was using to project violence.

I guess the jury will decide his fate....when someone takes the law and use of deadly force into their hands, they get what they deserve-both good and bad.

If a police officer would have had this same thing happen to them, they would be hung out to dry in an instant.

America no need is required it’s a right ans people feelings on seeing guns is not a factor. Those people should go live in their safe place. I don’t know if they have open carry laws there my guess it’s ok as he is not charged with anything like that.
How would it be any different if he was a cop? If someone chased a cop and grabbed his gun or beat him in the head with a skate board when he was on ground or pulled a gun and pointed at a cop the result would be them same they would be dead some how in this world that is no longer common sense. These people think people should be Superman and take bullets before they defend them selfs.

 

[Mathewrussell52]

....and there's the problem which will have anti-gun activists go nuts (not that they'd get anywhere but will annoy the crap out of everyone).

You have to wonder in what kind of world you guys live in when it is a normal thing for a (17 yr old) civilian to sling carry an AR15 and nobody raises an eyebrow, then for that civilian to attend a potentially violent protest and expect to not (at some point) use this deadly force against other civilians...

Just kike the thread title says "I don't get it"

You don’t get it because of FEAR. Guns are not a norm your government has banned most. In a lot of places in America guns are apart of everyday life so they are not scared.

 

[Bumblebee]

You don’t get it because of FEAR. Guns are not a norm your government has banned most. In a lot of places in America guns are apart of everyday life so they are not scared.

That's right FEAR...you obviously know zero about me and that's ok...I don't expect you to.

I don't get it because it was a stupid thing for this young person to be doing in the first place.

 

[Mythos]

Would this be viewed the same if Rittenhouse were an elderly black female? It should make no difference.

 

[Bumblebee]

Would this be viewed the same if Rittenhouse were an elderly black female? It should make no difference.

Would an elderly back female be walking around with a slung long gun on her back? Or maybe attached to her walker?

This is and never was race related as far as anything I've read and saw on the subject.

 

[busabobh]

I fear a real fair trial is out of the question. The court of public opinion ( read demonstrators) is already against him. This is not the country I grew up in, not the country I went to war for, not the people I wish to live with. I’m old and will be dead soon, I won’t have to put up with them. I wish my grandchildren luck.

 

[Mythos]

I fear a real fair trial is out of the question. The court of public opinion ( read demonstrators) is already against him.

My impression is that having the judge Rittenhouse has presiding has been very much in his favor. I think the prosecutor has been very reasonable in his line of questioning but he's been cut off by the judge. The media coverage also seems to be in favor of Rittenhouse. The real advantage is that all of the evidence seems to indicate Rittenhouse was acting in self defense. The circumstances before the shootings indicates he was willingiy putting himself in a situation where he was likely to kill someone and he came prepared to do so.