Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks

were you ever in fear for your life when you made the decisions?
Dude. I'm a 6'5", 39 year old British Asian male. I have had to make a fair number of decisions on the spot while fearing for my life.
 
Did Rittenhouse's behavior pose a direct and unreasonable threat?

oosXujX.jpg


Jr8WcSO.jpg
 
The aggressor is the one that got shot dead.

Was he? Does a person armed with a rifle have anything to fear from an unarmed person?

Most reasonable people and reasonable jurisdictions would consider the person with the gun to be the aggressor. Someone trying to disarm you does not really seem to require lethal force. The only group that can legitimately claim this reliably is law enforcement.
 
Last edited:
I don't wanna make light of the case but they way this lawyer talks really grinds me ears. I also feel like he's missing his blood pressure medication.
 
I did not. As you said, a second or two was a very long time for both of us to think about the situation, and he decided to retreat.

:lol:
Good man. You didn't kill someone in "self defence".

I do actually mean that, sarcasm aside. If you're a good guy with a gun, you've got a massive responsibility
 
Does this trial have OJ notoriety in terms of following? I remember stories about classrooms watching the OJ verdict.
 
You know what would actually be a really brilliant idea? BAN FECKING GUNS. Without a gun that waddly little cnut would maybe take a swing, break his wrist, piss himself and run back to his mom.
 
You know what would actually be a really brilliant idea? BAN FECKING GUNS. Without a gun that waddly little cnut would maybe take a swing, break his wrist, piss himself and run back to his mom.
But they need to keep their guns in case they have to fight a government with their Army, Air Force and Navy
 
You know what would actually be a really brilliant idea? BAN FECKING GUNS. Without a gun that waddly little cnut would maybe take a swing, break his wrist, piss himself and run back to his mom.

I don't think there is political will for that at the moment but banning armed militia like the kind RIttenhouse was roaming with is certainly a possibility.

"We need to step back from this militia nonsense. These private paramilitaries are illegal and should be treated as such by the authorities. Perhaps, in the past, it was thought that clamping down on these “Red Dawn”cosplayers wasn’t worth the political headache. But while we do nothing, they continue to embed themselves in political protests, and one day soon, we’ll find that it’s just too perilous to exercise our First Amendment rights in the public square."
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...rivate-paramilitaries-are-illegal-ncna1239397

----

Also, it looks like Rittenhouse lied yet again on the stand:

"When asked why a seventeen-year-old owned body armor, Rittenhouse said that it had been “issued” to him by the local police department where he had once participated in a cadet-mentorship program. The Chicago Tribune fact-checked this claim and reported it as untrue. On the stand, Rittenhouse admitted that on the night of the shootings he also overstated his medical credentials—he had lied about being an E.M.T."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-complex-task-facing-the-kyle-rittenhouse-jury

Got to love how much this kid lies to make himself look better.
 
The point the prosecutor makes is that he shouldn't be rattling off 4 shots in quick succession. It's not surprising that someone completely untrained and unexperienced like Rittenhouse would make this mistake which goes back to the reckless endangerment of some 17-year-old with no training or experience acting like a private militia. He should have just shot once and that would have been more than enough to stop the threat.
I think even with extensive training it would be hard for anyone in that situation if you’re fearing for your life.
 
You know what would actually be a really brilliant idea? BAN FECKING GUNS. Without a gun that waddly little cnut would maybe take a swing, break his wrist, piss himself and run back to his mom.

Never going to happen. If Sandy Hook did not motivate change nothing ever will.
 
Yes in a panicked situation for your life. You never made a poor choice in a moment? In just a normal average everyday situation? Add in Adrenalin and that fear.
In England, we don't have guns. Usually we do it with fists. I've thrown panicked punches, but if I land one, maybe two, if he's down, I'm running.

If I can stop punching, he can stop shooting.
 
Was he? Does a person armed with a rifle have anything to fear from an unarmed person?

Most reasonable people and reasonable jurisdictions would consider the person with the gun to be the aggressor. Someone trying to disarm you does not really seem to require lethal force. The only group that can legitimately claim this reliably is law enforcement.

I don’t agree that simply having a gun makes you the aggressor. What if the guy did manage to take his gun? Rittenhouse is a naive little boy but he was under threat by a convicted paedo that was a bit of a cannonball.
 
In England, we don't have guns. Usually we do it with fists. I've thrown panicked punches, but if I land one, maybe two, if he's down, I'm running.

If I can stop punching, he can stop shooting.

I would argue that having the gun enables a coward like Rittenhouse (who only punches girls) to "punch". Because he's a coward he is likely lacking any self control at that point.
 
I don’t agree that simply having a gun makes you the aggressor. What if the guy did manage to take his gun? Rittenhouse is a naive little boy but he was under threat by a convicted paedo that was a bit of a cannonball.
It was a bad decision to wear his paedo uniform that day.
 
I would argue that having the gun enables a coward like Rittenhouse (who only punches girls) to "punch". Because he's a coward he is likely lacking any self control at that point.
I get it, he needed more than his fists, but he didn't stop at two
 
I don’t agree that simply having a gun makes you the aggressor. What if the guy did manage to take his gun? Rittenhouse is a naive little boy but he was under threat by a convicted paedo that was a bit of a cannonball.
What is a gun for?
 
In England, we don't have guns. Usually we do it with fists. I've thrown panicked punches, but if I land one, maybe two, if he's down, I'm running.

If I can stop punching, he can stop shooting.

Perception and reaction time play in to this. Especially with other factors going on with everything else in the background etc.
 
In England, we don't have guns. Usually we do it with fists. I've thrown panicked punches, but if I land one, maybe two, if he's down, I'm running.

If I can stop punching, he can stop shooting.
Yeah I live in Scotland we don’t use or need guns. I think the fact anyone even ever needs to pull a gun is a pussy act In itself. However I don’t think these situations compare at all. .71 secs to fire 4 shots. You’d struggle to pick and throw 4 shots in that time with your fists.
 
Perception and reaction time play in to this. Especially with other factors going on with everything else in the background etc.
I get that, but if the guy had enough time to turn his back, Rittenhouse had time to stop firing
 
Yeah I live in Scotland we don’t use or need guns. I think the fact anyone even ever needs to pull a gun is a pussy act In itself. However I don’t think these situations compare at all. .71 secs to fire 4 shots. You’d struggle to pick and throw 4 shots in that time with your fists.
As a goalie, I've made 3/4 reaction saves in less time.
 
I get that, but if the guy had enough time to turn his back, Rittenhouse had time to stop firing

Not necessarily, no. Turning your back to someone shooting you is either going to be an automatic reaction or a natural physical response to being shot, there isn’t a perception in play that he has to make to realize “oh I’m being shot, I have to turn around here and it’ll stop”.
 
Not necessarily, no. Turning your back to someone shooting you is either going to be an automatic reaction or a natural physical response to being shot, there isn’t a perception in play that he has to make to realize “oh I’m being shot, I have to turn around here and it’ll stop”.
But if he had time to assess the situation, even subconsciously, so did Rittenhouse
 
To be honest at this point I think you’re just trolling. So I’m just going to end it here.
Look back through my comments in this thread, you'll realise I'm not trolling.

I don't like arguments that have no backing, so if you're not willing to have a conversation, you're right, it's probably best you don't talk to me
 
But if he had time to assess the situation, even subconsciously, so did Rittenhouse

Not really, no. Once he’s made that decision to fire, he could fire off four shots easily without perceiving what just happened.

You’re comparing the body’s natural reaction to recoil or turn from a stimulus, to someone’s conscious decision to perceive what’s happening, react, and make a conscious decision to stop.