Kyle Rittenhouse Book Sparks Uproar

For the 1 millionth time, everything Rittenhouse did he was legally allowed to do without being accosted by people who disagreed with his politics like some fascist state you seem to believe we live in. He didn't threaten people, he didn't assault people, he didn't instigate his attack. He kept his mouth shut except when he offered the rioters first aid. Why defend the rioters attacking a minor as if the minor did something wrong by putting out a fire? The violent rioters and arsonists were armed, so why shouldn't he have been? Why are you offended by the law-abiding citizen and not focused on his attackers?

 

I am threatening anyone, just pointing the obvious

I'm not the one encouraging to send children with no idea what they're doing into a hostile area. !!!!

 

You certainly are threatening people, and you've done it twice.
Further: I walk around in more dangerous neighborhoods, carrying valuables and not armed. Nothing happens. Why? Because people generally know not to assault someone for the crime of walking down the ****ing street and anyone asserting someone walking down the street should be assaulted needs to shut their wide open trap about morality. Not talking to YOU, you understand. Just pointing the obvious

Well, that's not what anyone did or what happened, so you feel free to keep humping that strawman like a little dog.

 

I don't feel threatened by you.

 

Well that's lovely, because I didn't threaten you. I pointed out that anyone who endorses assaulting someone for the crime of walking down a public street has no right to bitch about morality if such an assailant is shot to death, and encouraged such hypocrites to shut their ****ing mouths. I pointed out I was "not talking to YOU, you understand. Just pointing the obvious ".
Do you find it difficult to read? Maybe a nice text to speech device?

 

No one is encouraging him to do anything, but your victim blaming and victim shaming is getting absurd as are the straw men you keep erecting. Your posts in this thread amount to nothing other than daring women to walk around your neighborhood wearing revealing clothing in a discussion about sexual assault. Dangerous neighborhood or not, it is not the fault of Rittenhouse or women if other people assault them when they are obeying the law.

I assume you wouldn't say the same about a random woman who was assaulted, but you have no problem saying this about a conservative kid. The only difference seems to be the fact that his political persuasion has already been identified and personal bias.

 

Indeed. It's not Mr. Rittenhouse's fault he was assaulted by a mincing, boy hungry, pedophile.

 

The idea that he has some blame that a child diddler assaulted him because of what he was carrying is beyond absurd. I'm not sure what he did to hurt their feelings so badly, but it's hilarious. Open carrying is extremely common in some parts of this country, and many of the left-leaning rioters were armed. Why shouldn't he have been?

 

I'm sure if he hadn't have looked so youthful and vulnerable, or been wearing such tight jeans, it wouldn't have tempted the diddler into assaulting him.

SUrely he made him do it. /sarc

 

The irony is that it was the fire extinguisher and not the gun that set him off. But the far left use the firearm as the excuse for what happened to him. The kid spent the night putting out fires and administering first aid and that has the far left fuming. How dare he?!

 

HOW DARE HE STOP AN ARSON IN PROGRESS THAT MIGHT SPREAD!!!!!

 

I DARE you to carry a fire extinguisher and put out a fire in my neighborhood!

 

well I teach people firearms self defense. I did it for years at the DOJ. I still do it 10 years after I retired. KR sure seemed to know what he was doing. He only responded to those who violently attacked him. He didn't cook off a bunch of rounds that missed the hostiles. He didn't harm anyone other than the attackers. His fire discipline was very good. So he seemed to do pretty well. Far better than many police officers in similar situations had done. Far better than that assclown who threatened him with a pistol and got "disarmed" as a result (and justifiably so)

 

If the death had been committed with some other normal object, rather than a gun, do you think it would have been different?

What I mean is, is this about the gun, or does it all come down to just the concept of self defense?

 

Yes because here and in the UK self defence must be proportional to the perceived attack

 

Like if someone, who's attacking you, is about to get their hands on your gun?

 

Here being Australia or the USA? You are wrong about the USA. If someone starts beating on an armed man and the man shoots the attacker-that's justifiable. a threat of severe bodily injury-be it beating, garroting, knifing or shooting, justifies the use of deadly force by the defender

 

Because you people have been pacified.

 

WHat you percieve as proportional, isn't.

 

The reality is, this kid is very wealthy now. A hero. He righteously defended himself and his evil attackers were destroyed and in one case taught a valuable lesson.

Much of the left just hates him for being white and right wing.

 

The funny thing about it is he's only rich and famous because the left threw a 10-stage fit about him.

He shot their precious rioters, but they're going to exact their revenge on him but he won the case so it was only their Sprite that gave him a platform to write a book.

I hope he makes millions.

 

So if it escalates and you aren't prepared you're just a victim because the state made it to where you have to be?

I'm glad I'm in a country that at least somewhat respects my rights.

There's also quite a bit of abuses going on in the UK right now.

 

the kid is wealthy by what standards?? He will never be wealthy by most standards ..he will always be exploited by the gun nuts for the best of his life. He will never have a normal life.. Kinda sad actually

And he is a hero to only a certain sector of Americans .

Most Americans see him as an uneducated punk kid that comes from a broken home and his parents should have been arrested for child neglect when they allowed him to roam the streets during a riot

there is nothing righteous about arming yourself and going to a riot ..

amd nobody hates the kid. But most feel sorry for him .

I hope and pray the next kids parents say to their 17 year old child “ get back in the house with that rifle before you kill somebody “‘

 

Just those who believe in law, order, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to self-defense.

 

wrong

I believe in law, order and the right to keep and bear arms, and I certainly believe in self defense

I also believe in manslaughter laws

I also believe in taking responsibility for your actions
.....................................

what I do not believe in is a 17 year old child is allowed to roam the streets during a riot with a loaded military style weapon and play cops and robbers ..the parents should have been charged with child neglect...

rittenmouse should not have been charged with murder but should have been charged with manslaughter.

all 4 of those involved should have been home instead of outside during a riot

none of those involved were innocent

and 2 of the guilty paid the ultimate price and the hands of a juvenile delinquent