November 22, 2021 3:49 pm at 3:49 pm #2032183
My goal in starting this thread is because in my other thread, “Kyle Rittenhouse”, where I argue that it’s obvious from a legal standpoint that Kyle was innocent, people are commenting, that he shouldn’t have been there, he shouldn’t be playing cop, he was trying to be a hero…and all sorts of comments that have nothing to do with the fact that he was clearly 100% innocent. Now I do want to discuss all this, but separately. So I ask to everyone who says “he had no business being there” one simple direct question. Would you still say the same thing if it was your private business, in which you have invested your entire life into, that he was defending.November 22, 2021 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #2032277akupermaParticipant
From a legal perspective, he was innocent. Self-defense is a valid legal defense in almost all legal systems (except in fascist countries where private citizens aren’t allowed to be armed). For a parental perspective, one’s child should not be running around with a semi-automatic weapon confront an armed mod that was engaged in riot, and where the police had fled. Seventeen year olds, are their own, are not supposed to put down armed mobs. In general, when children are put in situations where they might be shot at (e.g. in the military), they receive significant training and there are grownups in charge. (by the way, under international law, children his age aren’t even allowed to be in situations where they might be shot at).November 22, 2021 5:39 pm at 5:39 pm #2032289
I am not saying anything about the murder case. But if I had a business, (at one point I was running a storefront.) I would only hire security that is competently trained to handle more trouble than I am expecting. If Rittenhouse had been hired by a private business, that entity would be at fault for all kinds of liabilities.November 22, 2021 6:04 pm at 6:04 pm #2032304
The jury found him innocent so what is the point. It is doubtful anyone is going to sue him esspecially since he doesn’t have money. He should have stayed at the gas station and not gone out alone. But he was young and didn’t think about what could happen esspecially since he had the AR15. That being said he had just as much right to be on the street as anyone else,November 22, 2021 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #2032325johnkletsParticipant
I do not understand all this arguments. Should all the teens protesting at BLM be there ? in our prespective they should all sit and learn….., not going out on the streets to seek fun….., untill the age of 21 and maybe even 25 you should be busy with your studies and not with outer distractions. But the fact that someone is a Leidigeir and does go to protest etc. makes him a murderer because he acted in self defense in a place that he should l’catchileh better not be there ? Maximum his parents should give him a spanking for going there without permission. Personally i don’t understand why a 17 year old rotzer has access to a gun, maybe he would not go there if he wouldn’t have a gun, but he’s in any case certainly not guilty at all, he acted in self defence and he got his harsh punishment already for being a leidigeir by the fear so many months of being sentenced to life in prison. I don’t wish anyone this kind of fear even for one day. Zeits gezunt.November 22, 2021 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #2032326
n0 that is the reason the owner of the car lot claimed he never told them to defend the car lot. Becuase he didn’t want the liability for anyone hurt by those protecting the car lot.November 22, 2021 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #2032336
He had the right to be on the street. If was dumb for doing so. And naive or clueless to bring an assault rifle.November 22, 2021 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #2032380Amil ZolaParticipant
Well it’s not like Rittenhouse drove there illegally, his mommy brought him, and she must have thought it was ok.November 22, 2021 8:33 pm at 8:33 pm #2032387
yeah, forget the factg he worked there and his dad lives there. I mean who cares about facts if Biden doesn’t like him. Go for it!November 22, 2021 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #2032389
If he would have hired a real security outfit, it would not be a problem.
I have this beef with organizations that hire some tough guy – like the janitor who lifts full buckets of water – for purim or so major event. And then they blame the victim’s when he gets all tough and does something stupid.November 22, 2021 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #2032390
The point should be revised to, “did he have any business brining along an assault rifle”.November 22, 2021 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #2032391
And my thinking is that since he was not comfortable with being attacked, and he was not trained to not try to escape, he had no business brining it along. But I’m going off of heresy, as I never met anyone who has direct knowledge of the matter.November 22, 2021 10:18 pm at 10:18 pm #2032411DovidBTParticipant
‘The point should be revised to, “did he have any business bringing along an assault rifle”. ‘
An AR-15 is just a semi-automatic rifle. It’s not an “assault” rifle.November 22, 2021 11:01 pm at 11:01 pm #2032457
Assault weapon is not an objective term. But your probably right on this one. Are you agreeing that one has no business bringing along a weapon that they are not comfortable using?November 22, 2021 11:01 pm at 11:01 pm #2032458
You were talking about a different post. Sorry.November 23, 2021 7:36 am at 7:36 am #2032598
n0- what kind of security do you hire when a mob breaks out using the shooting of a criminal as an excuse to destroy their city? People who were fed up ran out there to defend business, not to counter protest. It happened in other cities as well. The reality of this case has gotten so lost in the rhetoric.
Should he have gone? I don’t know. I
wouldn’t have but I sure understand why he would. Didn’t you have any thoughts of that when animals (calm down amil, its a comment on behavior not race) burned small business last year? Didn’t you on some level wish someone would do something?November 23, 2021 7:36 am at 7:36 am #2032595
Did we know he wasn’t comfortable with it? I missed that.November 23, 2021 8:06 am at 8:06 am #2032611
He was not comfortable that he could defend the weapon and that the weapon could defend him. He was all over the place. If he knew what he was doing, he would have marked his territory and stood his ground.
Agreed that I’m assuming some heresy on the actual story. I admit that I did not bother checking it out myself.November 23, 2021 8:06 am at 8:06 am #2032608
Are you agreeing that it was a dumb decision, just that we can empathize with his thought process? I can take that truce.
I’m assuming that you have more to say. Just it is better if I do not say it for you.November 23, 2021 8:51 am at 8:51 am #2032628
I don’t know what he was thinking when he went, and if I acted like I did, I would be guilty of what I just told everyone else not to do.
I can understand the idea of people getting sick of watching all the destruction with little defense, but I am also a frum female and my thoughts of running out to help among a dangerous, out of control mob is clouded by that reference point. I’m not a jump on the bandwagon person but I am one to fight for a cause. So not condoning or condemning. But not supporting either.
Honestly, I had no interest in the case, didn’t even see the logic in it becoming important. But then the media went nuts over it and the left started to use it as their symbol of white supremecy, condemning him as a party, which i always find fascinating. That human psyche piece grabs me every time.
My sole interest became the pursuit of knowing what really happened. Mostly in terms of ‘was this more fake news’, will truth have any effect on the partisan condemnation, trying to figure out how smart people can get sucked into that, and then seeing what would happen if they found out they were wrong. Will people make it invisible when they found out they had egg on their face? Is denial easier than shame? Are there any limits to selling ones intelligence for a seat in a group-think? Can power corrupt so absolutely?
Sorry. That probably wasn’t what you were looking for, and I’m sure it doesn’t make sense to most people. Question is, do I delete it or pretend I never wrote it in the first place?November 23, 2021 10:00 am at 10:00 am #2032663
Well, our two posts put together give a real picture of the complex ethical question. But neither of us are discussing that question. I’ll let you speak for yourself, but I’m on topic with the OP. Did he have any business being there with the rifle? And if he was not prepared for the challenge, then I think the answer is no.
Now, you did start a far more interesting topic. Am I delusional? Well, I have wandered on to this topic many times in my young life, and a definitive answer eludes me. All these topics that seem to hold our fascination, appear to be illusions to me. So am I deluding myself on my own fascination, or the objective reality? It is a far greater possibility that I am hypocritical with my own values. But then if I am open to that self realization, that I should not be considering myself delusional. Though one side of the values must be more truthful than the other. So it would again be assumed that I must be delusional. Though the depth of the deception completely eludes me. Thanks for listening.November 23, 2021 10:25 am at 10:25 am #2032674
That was exactly what I was looking for! Especially this line. Is denial easier than shame? By the way, at about his age having been in a similar situation, I can a bit relate to the fear factor. But I realized that trouble would likely come find me, and I preempted it. This guy realized it too late.
I looked at the story a bit when it happened, now it is mostly forgotten. What bothered me is that I knew there would be a major prosecution, with an absurd emphasis on due process. But the murder story in itself is not exceptional outside of it’s context and implications for the national discussion. This same story plays out in boring fashion, daily in inner cities. And nobody cares. And it really bothers me, that both tribes gets mad at the other for politicizing the murder. But for murder itself, there is a high tolerance.
Now you ask if there is a limit to selling one’s intelligence for a seat at group think. It is not a necessary task. Group think is a took to cover for a lack of an intelligent argument. Intelligence can defeat the masses. Even though group think seeks to deny this possibility, it is still true.November 23, 2021 10:45 am at 10:45 am #2032683lakewhutParticipant
Should the Democrat mobs gather I general?November 23, 2021 11:46 am at 11:46 am #2032692Yserbius123Participant
Would you still say the same thing if it was your private business, in which you have invested your entire life into, that he was defending?
G– En Himmel YES! If my business was chas v’sholom under threat from a mob, I would lock the store down and daven that my business will survive. What I absolutely do not want is some random teenager waving around an assault rifle and telling me he’s here to help.November 23, 2021 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm #2032698
Right to gather is pretty basic. Should they? Not during a pandemic. 😛November 23, 2021 1:01 pm at 1:01 pm #2032747Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipant
Yserbius, what if you had $1 mln of uninsured merchandise in the store that you mortgaged your house for? you would still do nothing? just trying to see how far your attitude goes?November 23, 2021 1:43 pm at 1:43 pm #2032760
Yesr -“What I absolutely do not want is some random teenager waving around an assault rifle and telling me he’s here to help.”
Of course he shouldn’t have been there. But that what happens in the Good Ole US of A where they think that you don’t need 2 parents to raise a child.
It’s you Libs that have created this Absurdity, with Rampant Divorce, for No Good reason!
Also why doesn’t it bother you – where were the Cops or National Guard to protect these cities & towns?!?November 23, 2021 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm #2032754
Well it’s not like Rittenhouse drove there illegally, his mommy brought him, and she must have thought it was ok.
Actually, he did drive himself there not his mother as he testified in court under oath and he also said he didn’t have a license to drive. I do think that would make it illegal.November 23, 2021 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm #2032813
abba_s-“It is doubtful anyone is going to sue him esspecially since he doesn’t have money. “-exactly what *can* he be sued for?
-“Actually, he did drive himself there not his mother as he testified in court under oath and he also said he didn’t have a license to drive. I do think that would make it illegal.” It would make it illegal to drive? Not illegal to be in Kenosha once he got there.
N0mesorah-“but I’m on topic with the OP. Did he have any business being there with the rifle? And if he was not prepared for the challenge, then I think the answer is no.”-I’m not sure what you mean by this. Ready for what challenge? His goal was to use the weapon as a deterrent for rioters to attack the property he was guarding, and being that there was a chance he’d be attacked for doing so, the gun was loaded. What do you mean by “ready for the challenge”?
Yserbius-“G– En Himmel YES! If my business was chas v’sholom under threat from a mob, I would lock the store down and daven that my business will survive.”- Hey, me too, look at that!
-“What I absolutely do not want is some random teenager waving around an assault rifle and telling me he’s here to help.”-once again, he wasn’t ”waving around an assault rifle”. And from the store owners perspective, he had no responsibility for the actions of the teen. Now let me make sure I have this down correctly. There are 50 businesses in town 49 are burnt down. A group of teenagers, unasked, but annoyed at the rioters, successfully saved and protected that 1 store. Your telling me now that you’d rather be one of those 49 owners who just lost their life savings, rather than that 1 thankful owner??November 23, 2021 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm #2032805
The high divorce rate is because divorce is legal. Why is everything always about liberals to you? Liberals are not even relevant in the present day.November 23, 2021 2:41 pm at 2:41 pm #2032828
I posted somewhere that he did not know what he was doing. If you have a rifle, you use it or put it away. I’m not sure what he actually did, but he clearly lacked training or courage. Probably both.
One more line. The people that I know I’m real life who are very vocal about defending him, are proud new gun owners who have little training and even less courage…..November 23, 2021 2:54 pm at 2:54 pm #20328392scentsParticipant
You should find more people.November 23, 2021 3:22 pm at 3:22 pm #2032847
n0mesorah-” If you have a rifle, you use it or put it away.” whats that supposed to mean? How does that help to ward off rioters?
-“but he clearly lacked training or courage. Probably both.”-And what makes you say that? the way he handled himself when he was knocked to the ground, seconds away from a mob absolutely lynching him, I think, is incredible.November 23, 2021 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm #2032849
No thanks! To be fair, it’s a total of six people.November 23, 2021 3:46 pm at 3:46 pm #2032862
The question is should Rittenhouse brought an AR15 to a BLM demonstration? I saw a picture in Newsweek of a girl 14 years old carrying an AR15 supposedly protecting the BLM demonstrators. If it’s illegal, for anyone under 16 to have a AR15 why wasn’t she arrested oh and by the way her farther was there too.November 23, 2021 3:50 pm at 3:50 pm #2032870NOYBParticipant
NoMesorah- you seem to be lacking some information, as you said you’re relying on a lot of hearsay, so allow me to fill you in.
First, let’s get a few things out of the way- Kyle was an idiot for being there, and his mother was a bigger idiot for letting him be there. However, I do not think we can say that a molester who got out of the mental hospital that morning (the first guy Kyle Shot, Joseph Rosenbaum) is totally innocent and would never have attacked Kyle if he didn’t have a rifle. Also, Kyle’s AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle. Assault rifles are specifically select-fire military rifles with intermediate cartridges. Kyle’s AR-15 is semi-automatic only, and was never used by the US military.
He shouldn’t have been there at all, but once he was, it was completely reasonable to bring protection. Doesn’t mean he was totally super pumped to shoot someone, doesn’t mean he thought he was in the army, it means he wanted to go help the community his father lived in and he knew it could be dangerous, so he wanted to be able to protect himself. Once he was there, good idea or not, when people attack you and try to take your weapon it is reasonable, as the court ruled, to defend yourself.
As someone who has been training with guns since he was 10 years old, I can tell you that Kyle did an excellent job of defending himself with his weapon. He didn’t fire any accidental rounds, didn’t fire until his life was being threatened, didn’t hit anyone who wasn’t trying to kill him first despite being in a crowded street, did all that while under massive pressure and despite being hit in the head with a skateboard and falling down. He lowered his rifle when the third guy seemed to be walking away, and only shot him when the third guy pointed his gun at him. he also fired only until the threat stopped, and didn’t just keep shooting. All in all, this is very very impressive.
In court, there were a couple of essential things that came out- 1. All 3 of the people Kyle shot started up with him, while he was trying to get away from them. as I said before, he even lowered his gun when rioter #3 was backing away from him, and only fired when rioter #3 pointed his gun at kyle. 2. He was legally allowed to be where he was, with his gun.
All in all, I don’t really understand your point. you say that “If you have a rifle, you use it or put it away. I’m not sure what he actually did, but he clearly lacked training or courage. Probably both.” Kyle did exactly what you said he should. he used his rifle when he was forced to to protect his own life, then slung it over his shoulder to “put it away” when he was close enough to police to stay safe. He acted courageously by not panicking, and I don’t know what sort of training he had, but he handled the situation as well as anyone possibly could have.November 23, 2021 3:53 pm at 3:53 pm #2032853
What this has shown is that we are heading toward a “Mob Rule ” Society. Do you think businesses will want to rebuild or will it be like Newark NJ that burned in the 1960s and they just started to rebuild? All this is going to do is get more people to buy guns.November 23, 2021 4:42 pm at 4:42 pm #2032889
NoMesorah -“The high divorce rate is because divorce is legal. Why is everything always about liberals to you? Liberals are not even relevant in the present day.”
Actually it’s Not, in every case. I got divorced in NJ.
The law states, even here, that there must be irreconcilable differences.
It’s already the Norm, especially in the Lib States, that one party files for divorce, the Judge okays it.
They don’t even bother to see if it’s Mutual Consent, let alone if there is irreconcilable differences!
This is because the State & it’s Judiciary is very Liberal!
So wake up & Realize what Damage Liberals have done to this Country.
Look at Rittenhouse – Where was his Parents? You need both to grow them up Properly!
Also – Where were the Cops or National Guard to protect these cities & towns?!?November 23, 2021 7:33 pm at 7:33 pm #2033007
I hear your points. It is still unclear to me why the gun would him. If the idea is to get out alive, then not going at all would be a better choice. Or go unarmed or lightly armed and keep a low profile.
My understanding was that he was running away. This is a point with gun engagement which is different than your typical crawl. You have to commit to use the gun or call it off. Everything else is very risky. In other words, shoot the attacker fatally or not, or get rid of the gun or hold it by the muzzle. One can try to calmly back away with a drawn gun. But do not make a break for it.
I understand that he knew how to shoot. I doubt he enough to detail.November 23, 2021 7:39 pm at 7:39 pm #2033013
It’s because nobody cares about the persons of our social fabric. We lost our religious sentiments. But where does liberalism come in?
PS As we know that back than almost all liberals were Republican.November 23, 2021 8:37 pm at 8:37 pm #2033039
NoMesorah -“As we know that back than almost all liberals were Republican”
I’m talking about Nowadays.
The reason that Judges don’t follow the Law is because they are Liberal DemonCrats.
So who in this Liberal State is going to Stop them?!?November 23, 2021 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm #2033062NOYBParticipant
NoMesorah- You are certainly correct that if the goal was survival, staying home was the best bet, and concealed carry was the 2nd best option. However, the point was to protect and clean up businesses, while providing a back up plan for survival if that became necessary, which it did.
I don’t really understand what you mean by “You have to commit to use the gun or call it off”
running away with a gun is absolutely a valid tactic. people spend a lot of time practicing tactical retreats/withdrawals, leapfrogging when backup is available, etc.
You don’t always shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat- for the first two, they stopped when they died. the third guy stopped after he was shot in the arm. Killing him at that point would be murder, because there is no reason to keep shooting if he’s no longer a threat.
What would be accomplished by dropping the gun or holding it by the muzzle? I highly doubt that people would have stopped chasing him, as mobs are not known for their rational decision-making abilities. There is no rule that you have to kill anyone you are forced to shoot, and there is no rule governing the speed at which you retreat in a fight (other than “as fast as is prudent”). he wasn’t pointing the rifle over his shoulder and cranking off rounds, he was running away, and then shot when he was knocked to the ground from behind and beaten. The prudent decision was to get away ASAP from the murderous mob that just tried to kill him 3 times.
“One can try to calmly back away with a drawn gun. But do not make a break for it.”
Why not? wouldn’t you want to get away from the people who tried to take your gun and then kill you with theirs as fast as possible? what would be the reason to go slow?November 23, 2021 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm #2033072
The same thing could be said about Pincus, he didn’t have to kill Zimri. Kyle was trying to put out fires, something that the government should have been doing. As far as the AR15, it was on a sling so he couldn’t realy drop it. It was used properly as you can see in the video even though he fell and was kicked in the face he grabed the gun and shot Huaber within seconds even though he was being hit with a skateboard.
The AR15 is a long gun and was easily seen by his assailants so they knew what they were up against. They took the risk and should suffer the consequences.November 25, 2021 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm #2033990Reb EliezerParticipant
I consider this what the gemora calls תחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס originally negligent (should not have been there with a rifle) and accidental at the end (self defense) when it comes to money matters, he is responsible. (SA CM 390:12)November 25, 2021 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm #2034053
Reb E: why was he negligent for carrying a rifle, the medic who he shot was carrying an unkicensed gun. It seems that is how they walk around there. In fact the medic when asked why he was carrying the gun said that he takes his first aid kit and his gun is part of his equipment. Also after the verdict there was a BLM demonstration where a 14 year old girl was pictured carrying an AR15.November 25, 2021 2:17 pm at 2:17 pm #2034063
Reb E-Wow Reb e, now your taking this to another level. Not only are you saying kyle *shouldn’t* have been there, but your implying it was *illegal* for him to be there with the rifle. Reb E, he wasn’t a תחלתו בפשיעה as he had every right to be there with the rifle. This thread is focusing on *should* he have been there. There’s no question that he had the *right* to be there.November 25, 2021 4:52 pm at 4:52 pm #2034086Reb EliezerParticipant
If you are at a wrong place at the wrong time, you are responsible for the consequences.November 25, 2021 5:02 pm at 5:02 pm #2034088EJMRBroParticipant
The “he should not have been there” is the most common complaint from mouth breathers who dont see that king kyle had the right to defend himself.
He broke curfew, but so did everyone else. The cops left and he was trying to keep his community safe.
If you think he was wrong, you should go back to twitter.November 25, 2021 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #2034174
Reb E, “If you are at a wrong place at the wrong time, you are responsible for the consequences”-very nice except he wasn’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. He had every right to be there.November 25, 2021 8:57 pm at 8:57 pm #2034188
RE -“If you are at a wrong place at the wrong time, you are responsible for the consequences”
Obviously the Jury doesn’t think like you.
As a matter of fact, the only ones that still think he’s guilty, are the Far Left Liberals, like you!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.