Should Rittenhouse have been there.

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).

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,

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.

Well it’s not like Rittenhouse drove there illegally, his mommy brought him, and she must have thought it was ok.

Dear Abba,

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.

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.

Dear Dovid,

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?

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?

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.

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?

Dear Syag,

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.

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.

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?

Amil Zoe
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.

Dear Health,

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.

n0mesorah

You should find more people.

Dear Two,

No thanks! To be fair, it’s a total of six people.

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.

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?!?

Dear Health,

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.

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?

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)

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.

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!