• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rittenhouse trial WOW!

D

Daddyo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,872
Reaction score
6,062
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Having watched much video evidence on the Rittenhouse shootings I was convinced that this young man was completely justified in shooting when he did. Having only some information it seemed that the young man should never have been there and violated some laws being there.

Now after having watched actual testimony including many facts I believe my first conclusion was not only correct but extremely correct.

Many of the liberal antigunners claimed the kid went to there kill, was a racist, and shot for no justified reason. ALL COMPLETE AND UTTER HORSE CRAP after hearing the facts.

Rittenhouse was a junior firefighter. Was a police explorer. Was a lifeguard and trained in bleed stopping. He was learning emt style medical treatment. He volunteered to clean graffiti and was generally a good kid.

I feel even stronger now about him being there to help. Even stronger about him being a good kid. Even stronger that those who got shot needed to be shot. They earned it through their actions. And yes even stronger that he shouldn't have been there.

The kid walks 100 percent! With my blessing.
 
So you feel vigilantism should be ok. Is that correct?
Not following all the details, but my understanding is he went with the intention of using a firearm to protect the area from those he perceived to be lawless and creating chaos.
While some might see that as noble, it seems like vigilantism to me. And that is counter to law and order.
 
So you were there and saw and heard things as they were unfolding?
 
WOW! I am sure that the next time there is a protest or a riot, you will send your kid there armed with an AR and give him your blessings
 

Breaking: guy who fanboys over Rittenhouse reiterates that he is indeed fanboying over Rittenhouse. Yawn.
 
Citizen said:
WOW! I am sure that the next time there is a protest or a riot, you will send your kid there armed with an AR and give him your blessings
Click to expand...
Since you believe that he was a kid, sent by his parent, how angry are you that he is being tried as an adult, instead of a juvenile hearing?

If, on January 6th, Rittenhouse had been at the capitol armed with an AR and had been chased by a rioter who had threatened earlier to kill him and he shot that rioter, you would be cheering for him.
 
zsu2357 said:
So you were there and saw and heard things as they were unfolding?
Click to expand...
Everything I've seen (including his own commentary) suggest he went there with the intentions I described. Are you saying you have to have personally been there to draw those conclusions?
 
Daddyo said:
The kid walks 100 percent!
Click to expand...
1. I have not been following this case.

2. Today while I was surfing the channels, I came across the trial.

a. He seemed so reasonable and well-spoken.
b. He was well-dressed.
c. He looked like the kind of clean-cut young man parents (of any ethnicity) would be proud to have.

3. Sadly, of course, he will be convicted.

a. NO jury has the guts to free him, lest all hell break loose in that city and state and possibly the nation.

4. The moral of this case: Stay far away from all protests of any kind.

a. The bad guys have the ear of Dem politicians and the Dem media.
b. Good guys do not stand a chance in this changing America.
 
Aletheia said:
So you feel vigilantism should be ok. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Vigilantism is your word.
Aletheia said:
Not following all the details, but my understanding is he went with the intention of using a firearm to protect the area from those he perceived to be lawless and creating chaos.
Click to expand...
My understanding is he went there to administer medical and safeguard property, his weapon was his insurance policy And I have followed the details. No it was not his intent to use it. Like a person with a license (CCW) carries,not with intent to use but only if he needs to.
Aletheia said:
While some might see that as noble, it seems like vigilantism to me. And that is counter to law and order.
Click to expand...
Isn't it counter to law and order to chase down someone you THINK is a vigilante based on the reactions of a mob?
 
Aletheia said:
So you feel vigilantism should be ok. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Nope I do feel however that Americans should be able to help one another when police are PREVENTED from or REFUSING to enforce the law.

Rittenhouse wasn't enforcing law. He was preventing a business from being burned and providing first aid to strangers in need.
 
Just watching the tape and the prosecutor had the gall to question Rittenhouse running to put out a fire and give first aid, by saying, "Isn't that something people normally call 911 for?"

How dumb does he think that that jury is?
 
Sorry you seem to have edited a post and added some stuff.

He went with the intent to prevent a car lot from being burned. His AR was there to defend himself not the business. No person was shot that wasn't attempting to kill him. Even those starting fires didn't get shot until they attack him.

What was counter to law and order were the rioters and looters AND police doing NOTHING.
 
I wonder about that asst. DA, he sounded more like a protester then prosecutor.
 
Citizen said:
WOW! I am sure that the next time there is a protest or a riot, you will send your kid there armed with an AR and give him your blessings
Click to expand...
You mean like you will send your kid next time there's a protest to smash windows and throw fire bombs and be part of a mob mentality? With of course your blessing.
 
Shooting when he did seems to have been clearly demonstrated to have been justified in the trail. All counts of anything intentional seems completely baseless. However, the paramedic who chased him believing he was an active shooter also acted reasonably. I'm not a lawyer, but the case for reckless endangerment seems much stronger. It seems like he genuinely had good intentions, and I'm sympathetic with how he acted once he was in the situation, but he did put himself in that situation. Personally I view the average drunk driver as having acted far more irresponsibly, but it does seem like there is a case to be made there.

Btw, this is an instance where, for once legitimately, I believe the mainstream media and general left population probably should have waited for a trail before making bold claims on Twitter.
 
zsu2357 said:
Vigilantism is your word.
Click to expand...

Vigilante. Definition​

a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) ​

broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice ​

​

"Rittenhouse and at least one friend say they traveled to the Wisconsin city to help protect local businesses and provide medical aid after two nights of violent riots and looting. Rittenhouse brought a medical kit and an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle, which he received from a friend. "

EMTs do not drive around with AR-15 rifles to administer medial aid. Bringing an AR-15 rifle to 'help protect' local businesses falls right within the definition of vigilantism above --

"...to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)"​


zsu2357 said:
Isn't it counter to law and order to chase down someone you THINK is a vigilante based on the reactions of a mob?
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear as I showed above. If it somehow wasn't clear, I ask again, why aren't EMTs required to carry around AR-15 rifles to administer medical aid? Because professionals who do it for a living are fully aware that it's not required. Nor did he himself (as you've seen above) say he went with the sole intention of administering medical aid, but with the additional self appointed role of protecting businesses with a deadly firearm.

Not only did he clearly deviate from protocol regarding the situation, but it's kind of hard to argue not being aware of the protocol, as the op himself showed he had lots of training in his previous experiences (junior firefighter, police explorers).

It's kind of like FOX and Rebublicans argue that Ashli Babbit was this sweet, naive kid, when she was clearly a grown adult with a history with the military and a clear anger towards democrats and anyone that didn't agree with Trump's big lie.
 
Last edited:
Aletheia said:
Everything I've seen (including his own commentary) suggest he went there with the intentions I described. Are you saying you have to have personally been there to draw those conclusions?
Click to expand...
You as much as said you haven't been following all the details which makes me wonder if you only follow the ones convenient to your cause.
 
zsu2357 said:
You as much as said you haven't been following all the details which makes me wonder if you only follow the ones convenient to your cause.
Click to expand...
I've provided you with links and facts to respond to (I didn't pull them out of thin air). Those should be sufficient for you to counter argue.

Was there noble intentions? Perhaps. Was he a good kid with a good background? Yes, I agree. At least with the limited information shown. Did he reasonably follow all of his training and the law? No. One does not travel with an AR-15 with the 'intention' to help businesses and provide medical assistance. I just don't think the court will side with him on the facts.
 
Rich2018 said:
Rittenhouse is obviously guilty and I hope he gets the maximum sentence the judge can give.
Click to expand...
He’s obviously guilty of killing two people. The question for the jury will be whether it was justified self defense or not.
 
Self defense is not vigilantism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…