But, but, but Gavin Newsom just said he has “no empathy or sympathy” for the criminals that robbed Louis Vuitton and Nordstrom in the Bay Area.
Wait, what? Doesn’t that go without saying??? Apparently not in Newsomland.
2 Likes
No dislike. The police are not there to like nor dislike. They are there to do a job-- and many have failed at that task. I have no respect for any sworn officer who would stand down leaving people at the whims of criminals AND then arrest them and charge them for defending themselves. Its a no-win situation for the defender.
3 Likes
He traveled 20 miles. He had family in Kenosha…
4 Likes
Wow… change the law because this fool believes he “broke the law”? I presume he means that self-defense should be illegal? I suspect if he was being assaulted, then chased by a mob shouting to get him and kill him, he would have a different opinion on this topic.
3 Likes
Suffice it to say, there was a whole lot of stupid going on that night.
2 Likes
Rittehouse’s lawyer, Mark Richards, said in an hour-long interview with reporters same day after the verdict that the car lot owner had asked Kyle to protect the property. Hence the carbine. The ask was stupid. The acceptance of the ask also was stupid. Nevertheless, Kyle’s actions conspicuously were in self-defense.
As to any and all gatherings that attract ANTIFA or BLM sympathizers, just plain don’t go. Simple as that. But if you involuntarily get caught up in such activity, you better be carrying concealed, you better have long before visualized every hypothetical you can imagine, you better be inconspicuous, and you better quickly and calmly get out of there.
1 Like
And when you have at last retreated to your house, there will be no one to speak for you. 
Kyle’s only mistake was to get separated from his armed buddies. 
3 Likes
Did anyone find out the model and year of his Masarati? Come on, what is really important here . . .
He legally was not “allowed” to conceal carry the rifle, nor was he legally “allowed” to conceal carry a handgun - neither did he have one. The rioters should not have been there - they especially should not have been there as they were violating numerous laws. Mr. Rittenhouse was legally “allowed” there as much, or more so, than those destroying private and public property. Mr. Rittenhouse clearly stated why he was there, and why he had the rifle. There was no ill-intent, his intent was to guard property and help those with medical needs.
I was at Lobby Day 2020 in Virginia. The Governor claimed that Antifa and rightwing extremists would be there and there would be violence. He claimed there would be people with firearms on the tops of the buildings surrounding the Capitol. He declared a state of emergency and turned the Capitol into a GFZ to prevent the always peaceful rally members, armed CC holders, access to the Capitol. He promulgated fear through stories in the news. Tens of thousands, of all races, ethnicities, etc., still showed up to the rally.
There were people on the tops of the buildings, including on the Capitol - the police with rifles and cameras. There was, yet again, no violence. There were police on the sidewalks and walking through the crowds. They were not in riot gear, neither did they appear afraid of the tens of thousands of armed citizens that they were surrounded by.
What I do know from personal experience, is that four of my friends and family decided not to attend due to all the fear-mongering by the Governor. There likely would have been several times more people there if not for his attempts to shutdown the rally. At what point will you stand for your rights? At what point are your rights - everyone’s rights - more important than your individual life?
1 Like
“Wrong” and “unwise” are NOT synonyms. Kyle did nothing wrong; his jury verdict showed that. He did something (in my estimation) that was unwise. Wise people stay away from violence and circumstances where violence is likely or expected. In his 17 year-old brain he saw the world as black and white i.e. evil vs. good. In my 64 year-old brain I KNOW of evil and good, but I stay as far as I can from evil. If after all my best efforts evil comes my way I fight. Protecting my own family and my own property is one thing. Going to a riot zone and voluntarily protecting someone else’s stuff is another thing altogether. You may disagree and that is your right. Kyle got lucky. Some juries would have sent him away for a long time. If you wish to risk this in your life, best wishes to you. Not me though.
3 Likes
There is a difference having a right to do something and whether doing that thing makes sense. It was that man’s right to carry the AR-15 into the rally/protest, but doing that in such a highly charged atmosphere doesn’t pass the Common Sense Test.
This is just my humble opinion, of course.
3 Likes
Use common sense while carrying a firearm, you represent all of us who are law abiding citizens who carry to protect one self and family. In case your are not aware we as second amendment law abiding citizens are being demonized by the anti gunners like in the Salem Witch trials.
The best way to protect yourself and others is to recognize the threat before it happens and ovoid conflict at all cost if you can.
Don’t advertise it will be used against you in a court of law, if you don’t get it you are a liability to yourself and others.
Personally I would never carry a AR-15 to a courthouse or any kind of protest like Rittenhouse did, just not smart period.
Nothing good will ever come of it.
1 Like
Only your opinion. Mr. Rittenhouse did not carry to a courthouse - completely different story. Mr. Rittenhouse would likely be dead if he was not carrying a rifle that night. Understand, under law, carrying a rifle, and as he did, was the only legal option he had available.
3 Likes
I was referring to the man who brought a AR 15 outside the courthouse as the Rittenhouse trial was underway.
And after that I stated at a protest that Mr Rittenhouse did bring his AR 15 too. Yes it is true that if he did not have his AR 15 he might have been severely injured or killed. But if he was not there in the first place there would not have been a trial. Carrying a rifle to a protest like that is asking for trouble that is just common sense.
Go ahead and keep thinking that just because you are legal in open carrying in public or concealed and injecting yourself in high risk situations that your trial will end up like Kyles you may have a rude awakening on your verdict.
I will say it again, Kyle Rittenhouse was not smart in bringing his rifle that night. Any ccw instructor would most likely tell you if you could avoid that kind of civil unrest do so at any cost.
1 Like
The issue with the illegal actions in Kenosha and good people interjecting themselves into a bad situation is entirely different than my being a CC holder and trying to avoid conflict. As a CC holder, one is not “allowed” to be the aggressor in an incident. Neither is one while acting in self-defense.
As a reasonable person, I try to avoid situations that may be problematic. However, sometimes good people need to do what is right, even if they might face difficult consequences. Mr. Rittenhouse was not going there alone. He was one of many that were armed that night. He specifically stated the rifle was strictly for self-defense. The videos in the trial also made it quite clear his reasons for being there. If those that attacked him were not there, or did not attack him, there would have been no trial, either. Those that attacked him were the ones that bore full responsibility for the situations they put themselves into.
Yes, if the rioters were not there, there would have been no looting, burning, or riots. That would have made all the others that came there to protect private property unnecessary and they would not have been there, either. Amazing how that works.
Back in 2020 at Lobby Day in Virginia, I was there - even though the Governor was injecting fear into people by claiming there would be violence and people with rifles on the rooftops surrounding the Capitol (there were, they were the police). I was one of tens of thousands there that day. Based on your comments, I should not have been there. I did what I believed was right, even though the Governor claimed it would be dangerous - it never was for the past 20+ years.
There was no violence, but due to all the fearmongering by the Governor, I had some concern, as did many others. I still went. Many of my friends and family did not attend due to the Governor’s fearmongering. Mr. Rittenhouse and many others also did what they believed to be right. To avoid all danger, one would need to remain in bed. At some point a person needs to stand-up for what he/she believes in. However that is far different than seeking out trouble.
4 Likes
Ok I’m done here !
This is the point I keep coming back to. The time will come as citizens we will be forced to make a stand. Do we do it where Kyle did or do we do it when it’s on our front porch?
I don’t not believe it is a matter of “if” but a matter ”when” and/or “where”
How long, as citizens of this country, do we keep surrendering the ground to the criminal element? For years I haven’t gone to Chicago for dinner and a show. In the last 3 years I’ve also quit St Louis.
Don’t go there because it’s a bad part of town? The good part of town keeps getting smaller and smaller!
3 Likes
I hear you Brother. All we can do is prepare our own and hope the storm doesn’t overtake us.
I think about and prepare for this every day, I feel we are slowly getting the fun and life sucked out
of us by having to worry about our own government.
3 Likes
From Rittenhouse’s testimony, he was there to both help his buddy to defend his business and to medically assist those who needed it. He was NOT there to take part in the riot, on either side. Thus, he was in a place where he was legally allowed to be. The Ar-15 was given to him by one of his buddies upon arrival. The rifle did NOT belong to him, and nor did he transport it across state lines, as the LameStream Media has claimed/lied. The only potential law he potentially broke was possessing a firearm at 17, but apparently the lawyers and judge determined that NOT to be the case.
The three assailants threatened Rittenhouse with death, and one of them stated for the record (under oath) that he pointed his firearm (that he was legally forbidden from possessing due to his status as a convicted felon) at Rittenhouse prior to being shot by Rittenhouse. Both of those facts did in fact contribute to Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim and acquittal.
Those were the facts.
Now, as others have said, Rittenhouse put himself in a dicey situation. Should he have been there? Probably not, but he was legally within his rights to do so. Yes, we do try to avoid confrontations, but the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Sometimes you get put in bad situations despite efforts to avoid them. Then you have to deal with what you are facing, not what you wanted to do, or tried to avoid.
3 Likes