It's Called Self Defense.

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Offline
What's messed up is the kid. He's obviously lost and gravitating towards what is nothing more than a vigilante group.
No different than the kids who were recruited into the hitler youth back in the day.
It's easier to brainwash ideology in/out of younger people or "start em young" as the saying goes.

I agree with the charges. The only reason he was there in the first place was because he wanted to be "part of the scene" hoping something would happen and happen it did. I have no doubt in my mind he initiated a confrontation. If this kid isn't stopped now he will become another George Zimmerman or just like those other losers who shot and killed that black kid that was jogging in their neighbourhood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman and RLENT

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Online
I'd suggest checking out the video and getting the full story before voicing an opinion. Yes, he was armed but he was running away from his attackers - who happened to be a BLM/Antifa mob that was burning and looting the city.
 

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Offline
who happened to be a BLM/Antifa mob that was burning and looting the city.
And that gives him the right to be a vigilante thinking he's saving the city?
He was there hoping something would happen so he could report back to the proud boys that he was "on guard" because he's trying to impress them, I think that's pretty obvious. There was no other reason for him to be there.

"On the third night of the riots, Rittenhouse, who turned out to protect local businesses and clean up vandalism, shot and killed two people amid the carnage".

He wasn't even protecting his own property, he was there only to be part of the scene just waiting and hoping for something to happen. Don't know why that part seems to be lost on some people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
Online
And that gives him the right to be a vigilante thinking he's saving the city?
He was there hoping something would happen so he could report back to the proud boys that he was "on guard" because he's trying to impress them, I think that's pretty obvious. There was no other reason for him to be there.

"On the third night of the riots, Rittenhouse, who turned out to protect local businesses and clean up vandalism, shot and killed two people amid the carnage".

He wasn't even protecting his own property, he was there only to be part of the scene just waiting and hoping for something to happen. Don't know why that part seems to be lost on some people.
The fact that the 2 people he shot both had weapons one had a pistol.....that's the part that's lost on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadTime and muttly

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Offline
The fact that the 2 people he shot both had weapons one had a pistol.....that's the part that's lost on you.
He shouldn't have been there. He went there purposely to be confrontational.
Why would you go there with a gun when you weren't even defending your own property??????
What part of that don't you get McFly?

Typical American hammerhead mentality. It doesn't matter who had what guns, LoL!
That's no justification for him being there or shooting anyone, LoL!!!!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
He shouldn't have been there. He went there purposely to be confrontational.
Why would you go there with a gun when you weren't even defending your own property??????
What part of that don't you get McFly?

Typical American hammerhead mentality. It doesn't matter who had what guns, LoL!
That's no justification for him being there or shooting anyone, LoL!!!!
He had a gun for protection. Are you against that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: danthewolf00

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Turning them into monsters ...


Rittenhouse was the epitome of a mesmerized skeleton ...
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Online
And that gives him the right to be a vigilante thinking he's saving the city?
He was there hoping something would happen so he could report back to the proud boys that he was "on guard" because he's trying to impress them, I think that's pretty obvious. There was no other reason for him to be there.

"On the third night of the riots, Rittenhouse, who turned out to protect local businesses and clean up vandalism, shot and killed two people amid the carnage".

He wasn't even protecting his own property, he was there only to be part of the scene just waiting and hoping for something to happen. Don't know why that part seems to be lost on some people.
His "right to be there" isn't the point; he had the same rights as anyone else to be there, stupid as it may have been. He may have been asked to be there - we don't know. The Kenosha riots brought in hundreds if not thousands of outside rioters, and caused over $50M in damages.

However, being there with a gun is another thing and he faces charges for that. OTOH, if he hadn't had the rifle he'd probably be dead.

He was not associated with the Proud Boys, and the judge has already kicked that assertion out of court for lack of proof.

"On the third night of the riots, Rittenhouse, who turned out to protect local businesses and clean up vandalism, shot and killed two people amid the carnage".
Totally out of context. He obviously shot those armed BLM attackers in self defense as he was running away from them - it was caught on video. BTW, what charges were brought against the attacker who had the handgun and survived?

"...he was there only to be part of the scene just waiting and hoping for something to happen"
The reason that part is "lost on some people" is because it's a gratuitous assertion that has no merit. To assume that Rittenhouse was there hoping to be isolated and attacked by armed Antifa/BLM thugs is ridiculous.

This kid is probably going to get nailed on gun charges even though there were plenty of other armed citizens there protecting their property since law enforcement was scarce. Before the dust settles he's probably have to undergo a psych evaluation, which probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

The important thing is these charges for "thought crimes" that the govt is trying to bring are a serious overreach, and something every citizen should reject. Dare I mention the former policies of the National German Socialist Workers Party?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadTime

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Offline
As usual the video doesn't show what happened before.
My bet is that he antagonized them and then took off running figuring he could get away with self defence if he shot one or more.
Whether he had the right to be there or not is immaterial. He had no reason to be there other than to be confrontational making him no better than
the mob he was running from. He's even heard on video saying he wished he could shoot the shoplifters. I wish I could shoot shoplifters too and get away with it and I have no doubt most non-shoplifters would feel the same way however it's just more evidence that he went down there purposely to be confrontational so the excuse that he had the right to be there means nothing. Intent however means everything!

I've seen his look before many times. He's lost and he lives in a video game world and will gravitate towards whatever he can identify with and it's obvious that he's a wannabe proud boy whether he could be officially linked with them or not yet you people keep making excuses for his sorry ass! Come on, look at the news source! It's got NRA/Rush Limbaugh "we are so persecuted" all over it!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
As usual the video doesn't show what happened before.
My bet is that he antagonized them and then took off running figuring he could get away with self defence if he shot one or more.
Whether he had the right to be there or not is immaterial. He had no reason to be there other than to be confrontational making him no better than
the mob he was running from. He's even heard on video saying he wished he could shoot the shoplifters. I wish I could shoot shoplifters too and get away with it and I have no doubt most non-shoplifters would feel the same way however it's just more eveidence that he went down there to be confrontational so don't give me your lame assed excuse that he had the right to be there as it means nothing. Intent however means everything!

I've seen his look before many times. He's lost and he lives in a video game world and will gravitate towards whatever he can identify with yet you people keep making excuses for his sorry ass! Come on, look at the news source! It's got NRA/Rush Limbaugh "we are so persecuted" all over it!
A lot of assumptions and bets in this post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pilgrim

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Offline
OMFG! He didnt go to the area hoping to put out a fire,LoL!
He went there as a vigilante and I hope that his words " I wish I could shoot the shoplifters" ends up hanging him....
Gawd why do you people make excuses for these no minds???

Edit: oh right, you must be of the same mentality!:confused2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and coalminer

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Offline
He had a gun for protection. Are you against that?
Nope, I'm very pro gun. He had no reason to be there so he had no reason to have a gun in his possession, legally or not.
He was being a vigilante, just admit it!
Idiots like him are exactly the type of people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

And, it's idiots like him who don't know how to be responsible gun owners are exactly the ones who will be the reason for your guns being banned, yet you still defend him. Now that's what I call pretzel logic!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Online
As usual the video doesn't show what happened before.
My bet is that he antagonized them and then took off running figuring he could get away with self defence if he shot one or more.
Whether he had the right to be there or not is immaterial. He had no reason to be there other than to be confrontational making him no better than
the mob he was running from. He's even heard on video saying he wished he could shoot the shoplifters. I wish I could shoot shoplifters too and get away with it and I have no doubt most non-shoplifters would feel the same way however it's just more evidence that he went down there purposely to be confrontational so the excuse that he had the right to be there means nothing. Intent however means everything!

I've seen his look before many times. He's lost and he lives in a video game world and will gravitate towards whatever he can identify with and it's obvious that he's a wannabe proud boy whether he could be officially linked with them or not yet you people keep making excuses for his sorry ass! Come on, look at the news source! It's got NRA/Rush Limbaugh "we are so persecuted" all over it!
"The video doesn't show what happened before",
So we don't know what happened before the incident. Regardless, it doesn't matter: they were armed and chasing him displaying violent intent. That is a felony.

"Whether he had the right to be there or not is immaterial. He had no reason to be there other than to be confrontational..."
This statement is not only contradictory, it's also an assumption without basis in fact.

"Intent however means everything!"
And his actions at the time display his intent to avoid the conflict. OTOH, the actions of the aggressors show they actually intended to threaten his life with deadly weapons to impose serious bodily harm. That's a case for self defense.

"I've seen his look before many times..."
This means nothing. It's only an opinion, and a confused one at that.

The primary issue in this case is the outrageous case the govt is trying to make against this kid. It appears they're throwing a newly printed book at him and hoping a few pages stick.
 

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Offline
Your are trying to use legal loopholes as a defence but I think it's pretty obvious his intentions were to be confrontational.
He will probably get off legally because as you say he was being chased however I am judging him morally and he's a pretty screwed up kid.

He was trying to look like he was on guard so he could impress his proud boys, no different than a striker trying to impress the rest of the motorcycle club but all "rights" aside, no one can deny he shouldnt have been there....
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Your are trying to use legal loopholes as a defence but I think it's pretty obvious his intentions were to be confrontational.
He will probably get off legally because as you say he was being chased however I am judging him morally and he's a pretty screwed up kid.

He was trying to look like he was on guard so he could impress his proud boys, no different than a striker trying to impress the rest of the motorcycle club but all "rights" aside, no one can deny he shouldnt have been there....
Putting out fires with a fire extinguisher is confrontational? He was confronted for doing so and was chased and physically assaulted. He had every right to defend himself from great bodily harm.
 
Top