Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[Vol8188]

Isn’t one option enough? He could have attempted to stand up and fight with the gun on his back. He could have surrendered the gun, given what had just occurred. Maybe the two individuals who reacted would have acted differently. He could have just allowed himself to get hit. I believe someone would have ultimately come to his rescue.

I can already see the hate responses upcoming but the point is there were other options that could have resulted in no one dying (and imo no serious bodily harm). The one with the gun should bear the most responsibility in a chaotic situation such as this one.

1. “Isn’t one option enough”-not when that option has already been shown to be ineffective.

2. So your second option is he attempts to fight at least 3 men, while unarmed? One of which had a pistol and another who’s swinging a skateboard at him. That sounds like a way to die.

3. You believe he should’ve just given his gun to the violent mob attacking him? You consider that a “reasonable option”?

4. I love this your fourth option is “just lay there and take it”.

Despite how absurd all of those suggestions were, it’s your last statement that’s the most insane. You don’t hold any of them accountable and consider them to be victims. But the guy who is actually ring attacked is in the wrong according to you, because he had a gun?

Every option you’ve named is one that could very possibly lead to his death. If you are attacked by a violent mob, you have the right to defend your self. The standard for the use of deadly force is you have to be facing a threat of great bodily harm or death. Obviously that was a serious possibility here and to pretend otherwise and even claim he should’ve given them his gun or just allowed them to beat him and not fact back, is to simply ignore all facts, logic, and reason.

 

[Vol8188]

Do you think that any citizen of the United States is warranted in driving to wherever they see protests, arming themselves, and walking around waiting for, indeed hoping for, a confrontation?

I just think that's dangerous at a lot of levels.

No, I oppose Gaige’s actions.

interesting you said “driving to wherever”. Have you just been ignoring the case in general? It seems you’re still pretending he wasn’t from Kenosha, didn’t work in Kenosha, and that he only came there for a protest.

 

[C-south]

Do you think that any citizen of the United States is warranted in driving to wherever they see protests, arming themselves, and walking around waiting for, indeed hoping for, a confrontation?

I just think that's dangerous at a lot of levels.

They absolutely are. Maybe citizens that drive there looking to destroy, loot, riot, and assault people should be a bit more weary going forward.

 

[hog88]

Do you think that any citizen of the United States is warranted in driving to wherever they see protests, arming themselves, and walking around waiting for, indeed hoping for, a confrontation?

I just think that's dangerous at a lot of levels.

Love the phrasing “warranted”. LOL

 

[1vol8]

Do you think that any citizen of the United States is warranted in driving to wherever they see protests, arming themselves, and walking around waiting for, indeed hoping for, a confrontation?

I just think that's dangerous at a lot of levels.

But not against the law and THIS right here is why I say you’re FOS and not an attorney. And If you are, you’re a biased one that has a limited amount of knowledge in law. You’re too busy in your feels than what’s actually written and I feel sorry for anyone that would hire you to represent them.

 

[hndog609]

1. “Isn’t one option enough”-not when that option has already been shown to be ineffective.

2. So your second option is he attempts to fight at least 3 men, while unarmed? One of which had a pistol and another who’s swinging a skateboard at him. That sounds like a way to die.

3. You believe he should’ve just given his gun to the violent mob attacking him? You consider that a “reasonable option”?

4. I love this your fourth option is “just lay there and take it”.

Despite how absurd all of those suggestions were, it’s your last statement that’s the most insane. You don’t hold any of them accountable and consider them to be victims. But the guy who is actually ring attacked is in the wrong according to you, because he had a gun?

Every option you’ve named is one that could very possibly lead to his death. If you are attacked by a violent mob, you have the right to defend your self. The standard for the use of deadly force is you have to be facing a threat of great bodily harm or death. Obviously that was a serious possibility here and to pretend otherwise and even claim he should’ve given them his gun or just allowed them to beat him and not fact back, is to simply ignore all facts, logic, and reason.

He's entrenched in the self defense version of "We have to pass it to see what's in it.". For the rest of us we can just sit back and realize his lack of understanding on how SD works in the real world doesn't change the laws involved.

 

[BayVol7]

1. “Isn’t one option enough”-not when that option has already been shown to be ineffective.

2. So your second option is he attempts to fight at least 3 men, while unarmed? One of which had a pistol and another who’s swinging a skateboard at him. That sounds like a way to die.

3. You believe he should’ve just given his gun to the violent mob attacking him? You consider that a “reasonable option”?

4. I love this your fourth option is “just lay there and take it”.

Despite how absurd all of those suggestions were, it’s your last statement that’s the most insane. You don’t hold any of them accountable and consider them to be victims.

Temporarily ineffective? As absurd as you think they are, they all most likely would have ended with no more loss of life, which to me, is the most important consideration.

But the guy who is actually ring attacked is in the wrong according to you, because he had a gun?

No, because he killed someone and then immediately reacted as a child who should not have a AR-15.

Every option you’ve named is one that could very possibly lead to his death. If you are attacked by a violent mob, you have the right to defend your self. The standard for the use of deadly force is you have to be facing a threat of great bodily harm or death. Obviously that was a serious possibility here and to pretend otherwise and even claim he should’ve given them his gun or just allowed them to beat him and not fact back, is to simply ignore all facts, logic, and reason.

Again, for the countless time, I’m not arguing the legal standard here. I also view the “angry mob” differently than you do.

 

[825VOL]

I don’t think the instances given are similar.
Had I already killed a man? I wouldn’t run away from that in the 1st place. I’d like to say ultimately that I’m putting the gun on my back and I’m standing up to fight. Or I’d shoot in the air. I’d definitely realize the power of my actions and what I had already done.

This is a typical response from someone who has never been in a situation like that. You might as well have said he should have shot them in the leg like on TV. Your take is hilarious and extremely stupid all in one. Thanks for the laugh

 

[BayVol7]

He's entrenched in the self defense version of "We have to pass it to see what's in it.". For the rest of us we can just sit back and realize his lack of understanding on how SD works in the real world doesn't change the laws involved.

Definitely understand how SD worked in this case. I feel like I need to put this in every single post on this subject at this point

 

[Orangeslice13]

Do you think that any citizen of the United States is warranted in driving to wherever they see protests, arming themselves, and walking around waiting for, indeed hoping for, a confrontation?

I just think that's dangerous at a lot of levels.

What a stupid question.
So basically…..everyone there.

 

[Vol8188]

Temporarily ineffective? As absurd as you think they are, they all most likely would have ended with no more loss of life, which to me, is the most important consideration.

No, because he killed someone and then immediately reacted as a child who should not have a AR-15.

Again, for the countless time, I’m not arguing the legal standard here. I also view the “angry mob” differently than you do.

What about his reaction was “child like” to you? Seems like he was the only person behaving appropriately. Do you often attack teenagers based on the desires of a violent mob?

Lmfao you are the one who specifically stated Hubert could’ve had an interesting case if only the attorney had been better. So how can you now claim you’re not arguing the legal standard?

 

[BayVol7]

This is a typical response from someone who has never been in a situation like that. You might as well have said he should have shot them in the leg like on TV. Your take is hilarious and extremely stupid all in one. Thanks for the laugh

 

[hog88]

But not against the law and THIS right here is why I say you’re FOS and not an attorney. And If you are, you’re a biased one that has a limited amount of knowledge in law. You’re too busy in your feels than what’s actually written and I feel sorry for anyone that would hire you to represent them.

LG is without a doubt an attorney.

 

[1vol8]

LG is without a doubt an attorney.

Like I said. If he is, I feel sorry for his clients

 

[BayVol7]

What about his reaction was “child like” to you? Seems like he was the only person behaving appropriately. Do you often attack teenagers based on the desires of a violent mob?

Really, all of his actions that night were childish IMO.

Lmfao you are the one who specifically stated Hubert could’ve had an interesting case if only the attorney had been better. So how can you now claim you’re not arguing the legal standard?

…And a different jurisdiction.
Because I have qualified basically every single post.

 

[Vol8188]

Really, all of his actions that night were childish IMO.


…And a different jurisdiction.
Because I have qualified basically every single post.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling or if your mind these are valid points you’re making.

What exactly was childish?

And what about a different jurisdiction? You said a better attorney and in a different jurisdiction, could have made an argument that he murdered Hubert…then I ask you about that and you claim “I’m not making a legal argument”. We call that moving the goal post.

But you’ve made 0 valid points. Your actual suggestions are that he should have given them his weapon or just laid there and taken it.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Where is the line drawn for you here? Does almost any threat warrant the gun use?

Any threat that you may be killed or suffer serious bodily injury means you use whatever force to end the threat as necessary

 

[DynaLo]

What are the chances of that? I’ll argue all day the probability does not equate to a point blank rifle shot. And again, I understand the legal justification in this instance. I just personally have a difficult time getting there.

But if Huber had not come back a second time at Kyle trying to brain him with that skateboard and grabbing the rifle he never would have been at point blank range to have gotten shot.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I don’t think the instances given are similar.
Had I already killed a man? I wouldn’t run away from that in the 1st place. I’d like to say ultimately that I’m putting the gun on my back and I’m standing up to fight. Or I’d shoot in the air. I’d definitely realize the power of my actions and what I had already done.

You can’t legally shoot in the air moron. That’s reckless endangerment

 

[Vol8188]

You can’t legally shoot in the air moron. That’s reckless endangerment

He’s either a child or just ignorant of guns in general.

 

[DynaLo]

Where is the line drawn for you here? Does almost any threat warrant the gun use?

If it physically can cause great bodily injury or death, yes.

• The person reasonably believes there's an imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death;
• The danger is real or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
• The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

 

[DynaLo]

I don’t think the instances given are similar.
Had I already killed a man? I wouldn’t run away from that in the 1st place. I’d like to say ultimately that I’m putting the gun on my back and I’m standing up to fight. Or I’d shoot in the air. I’d definitely realize the power of my actions and what I had already done.

Illegal all day every day.

 

[C-south]

He’s either a child or just ignorant of guns in general.

Most dims are fearful and completely ignorant of anything gun related even though it’s a fundamental right to have one.

 

[clarksvol00]

But not against the law and THIS right here is why I say you’re FOS and not an attorney. And If you are, you’re a biased one that has a limited amount of knowledge in law. You’re too busy in your feels than what’s actually written and I feel sorry for anyone that would hire you to represent them.

Your stance on beat downs due to bumper stickers and t-shirts indicates to me that you or your friends may be pretty busy in your feelz, as well.

 

[hndog609]

Definitely understand how SD worked in this case. I feel like I need to put this in every single post on this subject at this point

Are you aware someone that has repeatedly demonstrated they don't understand how SD works has been posting under your username?