Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#551
#551
Vol8188 said:
A lot of people on your side of politics want to ruin a young man’s entire life over this. So I think we should be really clear on these things.

How was he looking for trouble?

Does any of your answer to question 1 negate the fact that he was attacked and defended himself?
Click to expand...

I don't gas about him. Anyone who is a riot and armed to the teeth and does not also carry a badge and on the clock is looking for trouble.

Again, he put himself in that situation and won a stupid prize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrankenVol54 and USAFgolferVol
#552
#552
Septic said:
He willingly entered into a volatile situation where he thought a AR15 would be necessary, you can tell by the way he brought his AR15 to a riot. And yes, I feel the same way about the BLM and antifa members.
Click to expand...

From the article that was literally posted on this page by someone now arguing with you:
Arguably the largest setback for the government came over a request to show jurors a video of Rittenhouse expressing his desire to shoot a Black man who exited a CVS pharmacy because he thought the man was shoplifting. The defense conceded the facts about the video – admitting it was the defendant’s voice on and that he was referring to the same gun he later used to kill two people – but still requested that the evidence be kept far away from jurors in the case.

“Bro, I wish I had my ****ing AR,” Rittenhouse says. “I’d start shooting rounds at them.”
 
#553
#553
RockyTop85 said:
I mostly agree, which is why I asked you to express a basis for your idea/opinion. You declined and I concluded that you’re either uninformed or making an argument in bad faith.
Click to expand...

Which is a failure on your part. If you believe I’m ignorant, you’d spend far less time and energy simply explaining what fact(s) I’m missing.

Rather you’ve now spent a few hundred words writing about your assumption of ignorance on my part and we’ve gotten nowhere.

So do you intend on compounding and adding to what we both view as a problem in American culture today, or do you intend to simply inform me?
 
#554
#554
Septic said:
I don't gas about him. Anyone who is a riot and armed to the teeth and does not also carry a badge and on the clock is looking for trouble.

Again, he put himself in that situation and won a stupid prize.
Click to expand...

Seems you’re allowing your opinion of guns to cloud your judgement. The man was openly attacked and fortunately armed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#555
#555
Vol8188 said:
I just want to clarify. Do you believe going armed in some way negates his innate right to self defense?

I’m typing this message while traveling, armed, to Taco Bell.
Click to expand...

No, him being armed and defending himself is why I think he's a moron. I think he's a moron because he went to a riot openly carrying. Rational people don't go to riots with AR15's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrankenVol54
#556
#556
Vol8188 said:
Seems you’re allowing your opinion of guns to cloud your judgement. The man was openly attacked and fortunately armed.
Click to expand...

You'd be wrong - my opinion that he is an idiot has nothing to do with guns. In fact, I have a CCP permit and a safe with probably more guns than most folks in this forum.

Don't conflate my position that he went looking for trouble and finding it with me be anti-gun, because I'm not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol and Chris4Vols22
#557
#557
Septic said:
No, him being armed and defending himself is why I think he's a moron. I think he's a moron because he went to a riot openly carrying. Rational people don't go to riots with AR15's.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not trying to go back and forth all day. Im just confused on 1 thing. You’re saying “no”. I assume you’re saying “no being armed doesn’t negate his right to self defense”.

But you also consider him a moron for defending himself?

Am I misreading?
 
#558
#558
southgatevol said:
I do not know enough about the situation to have an opinion but that was a perfect example of circular argument. Edit..see above "I cannot/ will not state my position but yours is stupid."
Click to expand...
Except I’m not making any argument at all.

I’m saying that if someone has looked at these facts and can’t understand why people say that Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, then they’re breathtakingly stupid (or dishonest).

And if they haven’t looked at the facts, then they either aren’t wed to an opinion, like you, and they wouldn’t be belligerently demanding that other people disprove their opinion. At that point, it’s clearly not someone looking for an honest discussion of what happened.

Either way, I genuinely don’t care if they agree with me or not. Certainly not enough to go through all the remedial hoopla of bringing them up to speed.

They can go read the facts of what happened and say something informed or original about why they believe he didn’t go looking for trouble. Coming around asking me to use undisputed facts to change their mind reeks of bad faith.
 
#559
#559
Septic said:
You'd be wrong - my opinion that he is an idiot has nothing to do with guns. In fact, I have a CCP permit and a safe with probably more guns than most folks in this forum.

Don't conflate my position that he went looking for trouble and finding it with me be anti-gun, because I'm not.
Click to expand...

The armed black men who showed up to escort the governor of Michigan, do you believe they were looking for trouble?

What about the black panthers who famously protested armed in California in the 60s, resulting in new gun laws
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and Rickyvol77
#560
#560
Vol8188 said:
Sorry, not trying to go back and forth all day. Im just confused on 1 thing. You’re saying “no”. I assume you’re saying “no being armed doesn’t negate his right to self defense”.

But you also consider him a moron for defending himself?

Am I misreading?
Click to expand...

You're misreading. He's not a moron for defending himself - he's a moron for putting himself into a position where defending himself should have been reasonably expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol, n_huffhines and Vol8188
#561
#561
RockyTop85 said:
Except I’m not making any argument at all.

I’m saying that if someone has looked at these facts and can’t understand why people say that Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, then they’re breathtakingly stupid (or dishonest).

And if they haven’t looked at the facts, then they either aren’t wed to an opinion, like you, and they wouldn’t be belligerently demanding that other people disprove their opinion. At that point, it’s clearly not someone looking for an honest discussion of what happened.

Either way, I genuinely don’t care if they agree with me or not. Certainly not enough to go through all the remedial hoopla of bringing them up to speed.

They can go read the facts of what happened and say something informed or original about why they believe he didn’t go looking for trouble. Coming around asking me to use undisputed facts to change their mind reeks of bad faith.
Click to expand...

You’ve went through a lot more “hoopla” without informing anyone. It’s impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#562
#562
Vol8188 said:
The armed black men who showed up to escort the governor of Michigan, do you believe they were looking for trouble?

What about the black panthers who famously protested armed in California in the 60s, resulting in new gun laws
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're talking about and couldn't speak with any knowledge about those circumstances. My comments and observations are strictly relegated to Kyle.
 
#563
#563
Septic said:
You're misreading. He's not a moron for defending himself - he's a moron for putting himself into a position where defending himself should have been reasonably expected.
Click to expand...

Last question:

Do we agree this is a clear cut case of self defense based on all available evidence?
 
#564
#564
RockyTop85 said:
From the article that was literally posted on this page by someone now arguing with you:
Arguably the largest setback for the government came over a request to show jurors a video of Rittenhouse expressing his desire to shoot a Black man who exited a CVS pharmacy because he thought the man was shoplifting. The defense conceded the facts about the video – admitting it was the defendant’s voice on and that he was referring to the same gun he later used to kill two people – but still requested that the evidence be kept far away from jurors in the case.

“Bro, I wish I had my ****ing AR,” Rittenhouse says. “I’d start shooting rounds at them.”
Click to expand...
That was because as the judge said he didnt act on it amd did the right thing by calling the police..
 
#565
#565
#567
#567
Vol8188 said:
Last question:

Do we agree this is a clear cut case of self defense based on all available evidence?
Click to expand...

Clear cut? I don't know, context matters. I know he was illegaly in possession of a fire arm at a riot in which there was a reasonable expectation of violence. Reports are that it was he who escalated the situation and engaged in excessive retaliatory force.

So no, I'm not sure anything is "clear cut", except for my belief that he is a moron.
 
#568
#568
Vol8188 said:
Which is a failure on your part. If you believe I’m ignorant, you’d spend far less time and energy simply explaining what fact(s) I’m missing.

Rather you’ve now spent a few hundred words writing about your assumption of ignorance on my part and we’ve gotten nowhere.

So do you intend on compounding and adding to what we both view as a problem in American culture today, or do you intend to simply inform me?
Click to expand...
I don’t consider it a failure and I don’t actually believe you are ignorant. I might still care about the opinion of someone who was merely ignorant of the facts.

As I explained, asking you to state your understanding of the facts was meant to rule out ignorance. If you were simply ignorant, you wouldn’t have had any objection to plainly stating your understanding of the facts to show why you think he wasn’t looking for trouble to identify a common starting point and work from there.

The remaining possibilities, at least the ones I can come up with, preclude the possibility of you having a valuable opinion.

Therefore, to me, pointing out how your approach disqualified your opinion before you even began has more value than actually discussing the merits of your opinion.
 
#570
#570
Septic said:
Clear cut? I don't know, context matters. I know he was illegaly in possession of a fire arm at a riot in which there was a reasonable expectation of violence. Reports are that it was he who escalated the situation and engaged in excessive retaliatory force.

So no, I'm not sure anything is "clear cut", except for my belief that he is a moron.
Click to expand...

Let’s be clear, the legality of your possession is irrelevant to “self defense”. And the video clear shows he’s not the aggressor. He’s running away. He’s being kicked and hit with a skateboard.

If there’s other video evidence and not just the opinions of protestors from the other side, I’d want to see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#571
#571
Septic said:
Great, I'll assume you're right but that's not a point or argument I'm making.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to hear you call them morons too.

I try to stay principled in all of my views. I’m sure I fail sometimes. But I support either sides right to protest armed or unarmed
 
#572
#572
RockyTop85 said:
I don’t consider it a failure and I don’t actually believe you are ignorant. I might still care about the opinion of someone who was merely ignorant of the facts.

As I explained, asking you to state your understanding of the facts was meant to rule out ignorance. If you were simply ignorant, you wouldn’t have had any objection to plainly stating your understanding of the facts to show why you think he wasn’t looking for trouble to identify a common starting point and work from there.

The remaining possibilities, at least the ones I can come up with, preclude the possibility of you having a valuable opinion.

Therefore, to me, pointing out how your approach disqualified your opinion before you even began has more value than actually discussing the merits of your opinion.
Click to expand...

So you wanted me to state every fact I know to rule out my ignorance?

Can you state every fact you know for us to rule out your own or do we only assume ignorance on the counterpart?
 
#573
#573
Septic said:
You're misreading. He's not a moron for defending himself - he's a moron for putting himself into a position where defending himself should have been reasonably expected.
Click to expand...
How so? Maybe he really IS a patriot and wanted to help his 'neighbors'. Or is it better if everyone except the cops just look down and shake their heads in disgust while thugs kill people and burn their livelihoods to the ground? Some people run towards danger regardless of whether or not they are law enforcement.
 
#574
#574
RockyTop85 said:
From the article that was literally posted on this page by someone now arguing with you:
Arguably the largest setback for the government came over a request to show jurors a video of Rittenhouse expressing his desire to shoot a Black man who exited a CVS pharmacy because he thought the man was shoplifting. The defense conceded the facts about the video – admitting it was the defendant’s voice on and that he was referring to the same gun he later used to kill two people – but still requested that the evidence be kept far away from jurors in the case.

“Bro, I wish I had my ****ing AR,” Rittenhouse says. “I’d start shooting rounds at them.”
Click to expand...
Who on this board, with any testosterone, has not in pure braggadociousness, stated to a buddy "If I had ___________ I'd __________" knowing you'd never really do it sober.
 
#575
#575
Vol8188 said:
I just wanted to hear you call them morons too.

I try to stay principled in all of my views. I’m sure I fail sometimes. But I support either sides right to protest armed or unarmed
Click to expand...

I'm too busy to dive into the links, but if the circumstances were the same then yes -whoever you're implying did the same are also morons.

Anyone who shows up to a known riot is a moron. If you drive for hours to get to said riot and sling a AR15 around your neck while "patrolling" the streets, you've graduated to "******* moron." irrespective of race or partisan lean.

Does that help?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, Hunerwadel and Vol8188
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top