the teenager — who was just feet from Rosenbaum — began shooting, striking Rosenbaum in the back and groin. Another bullet grazed Rosenbaum’s head. In the seconds after the gunfire, Rittenhouse is caught on video trying to call a friend for help.
So let's be clear, three people assaulted kyle and all three were shot. All three have criminal history.....hmm so weird. Also no video or autopsy stated rosenbaum was shot in the head they way some like to claim. But one thing is for sure three men assaulted a teen that night. Meaning their actions came first.
A criminal history is not an excuse to shoot someone. I think this LARPER will go down for a long time. Trumpers can screech and scream, but they have never been the majority of Americans, the never won the peoples vote. There abhorrent views were expressed for a short time... That time is over, just like in deliverance they will continue to exist in the back woods.
A criminal history is ABSOLEtly not a right to gun someone down but it does show behavior also all the larpers acting our for BLM were just that, not much different than kyle and its fair to day kyle did some f-d up things yet 3 ppl attacked him. While you are a big guy with martial arts background guys like kyle don't have that and they still came at him. weird because I would have thought you would be against bullies.
I don't like bullies, but he went walking around a place where there was likely to be violence with a gun, he travelled to borrow a gun. The he was pointing it at people, did he think no one would react? I suspect he knew full well people would react and wanted them to so he could shoot them.
Are you kidding me, first bullies pick the easiest targets like a 17 year old. Then beyond that you impart you into the situation, you would want to shoot them, that's all you said but changed the person to blame.
This was attempted already by Broly, Surt and SilientMaster not long after the murders happened. Rosenbaum is a convicted pedophile (he molested several underage boys when he was 19), he's a piece of shit, but he served his time and Kyle shooting him had absolutely nothing to do with that. It's not a justification for Rittenhouse's actions.
It's odd how Rittenhouse is pushed as the one defending himself, when he's the one with the assault rifle, illegally carrying it too boot. If I point an assault rifle at someone, they have every right to take that as an immediate threat.
The owners of the business he allegedly protected did not even ask for help.
He did not own any property in Kenosha county, you can self defense to save a third person, not his property.
This kid is just another example of who SHOULD NOT own a gun. If I went to every protest to defend somebody else’s property and ended up killing people I wouldn’t be free long. Him on the other hand gets donations from dirty politicians. Sickening.
His previous crime didn't mean he deserved the outcome it's simply an indicator of his past behavior. It wasn't illegal to shoot it was illegal apparently to own but seriously why do we split hairs over human life. He shot men attacking him, how is that questionable?
Wouldn't it make sense that the people who want to severely limit the average individuals access to fire arms would want to split hairs on issues of legality, instead of property rights and defense of them ?
If owning guns is bad, then it is bad for everyone. Guns, then, should be banned. Thus policemen and soldiers must give up their weapons. If policemen and soldiers need guns to protect themselves from dangerous criminals, why not ordinary citizens? Does that mean that possessing guns is sometimes good and sometimes bad? What is the difference? Remember — there is no such thing as "a policeman" or "a soldier" — those are mere concepts. Only people exist, and if gun ownership is a good idea for a soldier, but a bad idea for a private citizen, what happens to the soldier when he goes on leave? Does his nature change somehow, so that now he no longer has the right to own a gun? What about when a policeman changes out of his uniform? Does he change in some fundamental manner, and so loses the right to be armed? Is it only his uniform that has the right to carry a gun? What if someone else puts on that uniform? Of course, these questions cannot be answered, and so the whole argument for gun control becomes logically foolish. People will then turn to the argument from effect — i.e. general gun ownership leads to increased violence — which can also be easily countered. If gun ownership leads to increased violence, then surely the cops and soldiers will become increasingly violent if they alone have guns. Since dictatorships and war are worse than crime (because you can defend yourself against criminals, but not governments), then surely that is an argument against only allowing people who work for the state to carry guns. Thus a person can only argue against gun ownership from a subjective "me no like" perspective — which is a perfect time to explain how the stateless free market can grant him his wish!
Unless Rosenblaum was trying to sexually molest Rittenhouse, there's no "indicator of past behavior". That's some serious stretch of logic.
Illegal to own but not to shoot? That sounds weird. But it's illegal to shoot and murder and/or harm people, what Rittenhouse is being charged with, among other crimes. The man who gave Rittenhouse the assault rifle is being charged as well.
As noted, if you point an assault rifle at someone, they're justified in taking that as as threat to their life and they can act accordingly.
If you point the gun at me, you're the threat, cos you're the one with the mass-murder weapon. There are multiple accounts that Rittenhouse was pointing the gun at people.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 10th, 2021 05:47 PM
