Responsible Citizen or Reckless Vigilante?

News & Current Events
41

I leave my house, armed, to go where I must go. Going anywhere near these protests/riots is something I would avoid period. Being legally allowed to go somewhere means nothing when you could encounter unruly crowds. I was taught to avoid certain situations & areas as much as is within my power. That is a rule for life- even moreso when armed. This fella’s intentions are going to be debated and folks will be on both sides.

My mindset is different. I’m older, a husband, and a dad. Plus, I don’t consider it wise to be walking around with my rifle at night (near rioting/looting or not). :v:t5::grimacing:

2 Likes
42

As an older individual, that has little to do with it. While we should avoid trouble, we should not surrender our freedom, our rights.

If you go to a grocery store, on w regular basis, and you go to purchase groceries for your family, and there are ‘protesters’, do you turn around and run back home or live your life and go into the grocery store.

And, if you consider going to another store in town, perhaps the other store is across town, or there are ‘protests’ at both stores, so you are still facing the choices or going in or returning home… unless you want to alter your life significantly and drive 30 or 40 miles to the next town with a grocery store.

4 Likes
43

Driving to the other side of my town is not a big deal to me. I will do what I can to avoid certain situations. Driving a few extra miles is nothing compared to a life-threatening or life-changing situation, in my opinion. You seem to be of the mindset that you can go wherever you want to go, whenever you want to- You certainly can! You’re speaking of hypotheticals; things that may never happen. But, my mindset & conclusion is rooted firmly in Proverbs 22:3 & 27:12.

It’s never a matter of “CAN I” but rather “SHOULD I?” I can open carry but I do not open carry because I don’t believe it to be prudent. Others do it… Knock yourself out. More power to you. :v:t5:

1 Like
44

Kyle Rittenhouse Kenosha Shooting - What Actually Happened - YouTube On Kenosha shooting.

45

Hey, someone thew one at the Caddo court house down here.

46

@Dave17

Agreed. Unfounded speculation.

1 Like
47

I was watching Bear Independent yesterday:

Bear’s crew predicts the Kyle Rittenhouse self-defense shooting will be our Concord. Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to condemn this kid. Very few facts and the blood on the pavement hasn’t even dried yet. I added an article yesterday on the character of Kyle’s attackers. Read the rumblings about character having nothing to do about them getting shot. BS flag is out. Why the criminal charges against Kyle? Bloomberg bought DAs will do what their paid to do. Keep denying the criminal activities that are being perpetrated by these partially “peaceful” protestors.

4 Likes
48

You have missed the point, and in the process displayed a rather clear bias.

First, yes, I am of the mindset, in America, as an American, with freedom, liberty and rights, I can go wherever I want, whenever I want (within the rule of law)…
I did not say I would, and yes, I do make some effort to avoid high risk situations. I do not however alter my life to the point of surrendering my rights or freedom. If I go to one town to purchase groceries and gas, I am not turning around and driving 40 miles to another town simply because I get to town and there is a ‘riot’. I might not have the gas to get to that town or there might be other considerations.
Yes, it might be hypotheticals, but much of what we discuss and consider are hypotheticals. It is hypothetical that you might go to the store and have someone attack you… it is hypothetical what your reaction will be, it is hypothetical because it has not happened and may never happen, and we all, or most, hope it never will.

It is a matter of ‘CAN YOU’. If it is ‘SHOULD YOU’, you have already surrendered your rights and freedom.

Now, to the point.
Part of the criteria for self defense is… you have a LEGAL RIGHT TO BE WHERE YOU ARE.

It seems the argument has been, ‘He should not have been there’. The argument then becomes Rittenhouse should be prosecuted and does not have a self defense claim because he was somewhere he ‘SHOULD NOT have been’ (The SHOULD I argument).

That means the criteria for self defense is being altered.

So, if you go to the grocery store, are attacked in the parking lot and are forced to defend yourself… should you be held accountable and prosecuted because 'you should not have been there at that time and if you were not there, you would not have shot your attacker.

It does not take much to go from, Ritternhouse went to a volatile location, and he should not have been there (denying his self defense claim), to you should not have been {wherever you were} at the time you were there, because if you were not there, your attacker would not have been shot by you.

We either have criteria to adhere to for self defense, or we start allowing a fluidity in the criteria, to mutate and morph, for each and every situation and prosecutor.

3 Likes
49

Indeed.

There are several on this forum alone, that condemn Rittenhouse and claim… ‘If he had not been there, he would not have had to shoot them’.

Self defense criteria is NOT … if you had not been there.

It IS… if you are somewhere you have a legal right to be.

Rittenhouse had a legal right to be there. The issue of whether it was prudent or smart is NOT the issue.

His only real concern is the law regarding the carrying of a rifle by someone under 18.

4 Likes
50

Neither of these. He was… foolish, sure, to go out into a riot. On the other hand, law enforcement wasn’t/couldn’t do their jobs. The longer the riots continue, the more of this we’ll see. He had medical gear with him too, not just a rifle. He was apparently there with others to defend businesses and offer medical assistance if and when applicable. It’s not clear what lead to him shooting the first individual (all three shot had criminal records), but some reports suggest someone on the “other side” may have discharged a firearm first. Kyle then ran away, towards police, and was chased. When he tripped, two individuals tried to physically attack him. One with a blunt object (skateboard), one with what appeared to be a Glock. He shot in self defense at that point. He then attempted to surrender to police.

Again, I don’t think he should have gone out there, and I’m not advocating that anyone try to stop a riot with or without a group. However, I’m not going to condemn this kid either. We’ll see what else we learn in the coming weeks. Right now, all I see is a concerned citizen, young and foolish as he might be, who acted in self defense and is currently being railroaded by left of center political elements. AGAIN, the longer the riots continue, the more of this is inevitable. If law inforcement won’t, people will. That’s my two cents as of 8/29/20

4 Likes
51

@Kevin29 I remember safety briefings before going into the Middle-East where some of the countries will always find you guilty of a vehicle accident because it wouldn’t have happened if you weren’t there. Sorry, but not in my nation!

1 Like
52

Could you elaborate? How does one hold themselves to a higher standard in such turbulent circumstances? While some facts of this situation remain unclear, is there not a point where you’re FORCED to pull the trigger?

2 Likes
53

Let’s try this.

I might want to bring in some additional points of view.

@Dawn and @MikeBKY. This points to the criteria for self defense.

Dawn, in line with playing Devil’s advocate…

Now, to the point.
Part of the criteria for self defense is… you have a LEGAL RIGHT TO BE WHERE YOU ARE.

It seems the argument has been, ‘He should not have been there’. The argument then becomes Rittenhouse should be prosecuted and does not have a self defense claim because he was somewhere he ‘SHOULD NOT have been’ (The SHOULD I argument).

That means the criteria for self defense is being altered.

So, if you go to the grocery store, are attacked in the parking lot and are forced to defend yourself… should you be held accountable and prosecuted because 'you should not have been there at that time and if you were not there, you would not have shot your attacker.

It does not take much to go from, Rittenhouse went to a volatile location, and he should not have been there (denying his self defense claim), to you should not have been {wherever you were} at the time you were there, because if you were not there, your attacker would not have been shot by you.

We either have criteria to adhere to for self defense, or we start allowing a fluidity in the criteria, to mutate and morph, for each and every situation and prosecutor.

So, what would a reasonable person do, when chased, with molotov cocktails being thrown at you, when they are attacking you and you are outnumbered? What would a reasonable person do if kicked in the head, hit with a skate board, and have an armed felon coming at you?

Does the claim of self defense evaporate if he was in a volatile location? Is the criteria ‘He should not have been there’?

I do think the charge regarding the carrying of a rifle by someone under 18 might stick, but that remains to be seen… but murder? Unless we are going to allow self defense criteria to be … if you were not there, you would not have had to shoot the attacker.

Being somewhere, whether prudent or smart… is not the issue, it is whether you have a legal right to be there, or so I thought.

MikeBKY, any input you can provide that might shed some illumination on the subject.
Dawn, this is something we should consider and put some thought into.

1 Like
54

I’m not speaking of the legality of his presence in Kenosha. I think he’s gonna walk on whatever murder charges they put on him. The only issue is him having the rifle but that doesn’t negate his right to defend himself (from multiple attackers). I get that.

We see things differently though. Nothing wrong with that. I appreciate the dialogue. I learned something. :v:t5:

1 Like
55

Not yet.

And, some of those Middle East, well, foreign nations in general, North Africa and even sub Saharan Africa, and Pakistan all have unusual driving rules.

The primary things to remember are… alternate your route and time if and when possible, and always be aware of your surroundings, keep space between you and the vehicle in front, especially at stops… and when and if you need to evade, escape and / or run a road block, hit the accelerator and aim for the trunk or the lightest end of the vehicle and / or the least amount of attackers and drive through.

Of course, much of that was dealing with foreign nations that had potential terrorism, civil unrest and civil war…

hmm…

Sounds like the left’s America today.

2 Likes
56

Thank you.

I may have combined your comments with some others that were suggesting he should not have been there which they seemed to think might negate his self defense claim.

Yes, the rifle under Wisconsin law might be a problem for him, but I agree about the murder charges… in a LEGAL and LAWFUL court.

We do not always see the courts follow the law.

2 Likes
57

More information.

3 Likes
58

Responsible citizen, or reckless vigilante (may have multiple applications)…

1 Like
59

@Greg35 That was actually a moving speech, one that the Democrats have failed to even approach in content or sustenance because the party line is devoid of context and commitment. THAT quite frankly was what I hoped Black Lives Matter Inc. would become but alas they turned into a mouth piece for the Marxist and Socialist Left and are worthless other than as a pawn for the Anarchist movement. At that point my support ends as there is still a racial divide even though the guy holding the megaphone behind the orange glasses was white. To see all of this energy and determination focused on the ethereal term “Racism” is a waist. Focus that power and that energy into the black communities that are desperately crying out for peace. THAT is how social justice will be achieved. Bring the NFAC into the streets of south side Chicago, Baltimore, Camden, Oakland, LA and the whole of the top 10 Democratic run war zones. Let them be bad a$$e$ among their own in thier black camies, plate carriers and sunglasses. I will cheer if they are successful but in the mean time I will watch and guard my own. They have a small window of time to effect change, I hope they take it.

Cheers,

Craig6

3 Likes
60

Every time i’ve watched one of his ‘speeches’ I’ve been left thinking that he talked for ‘just a little too long’ when he starts making it all about race instead of about right and and wrong and solid ethics.

It’s as if I listen and go… yup, yup, yup… hey that’s the most racist thing I’ve ever heard…

3 Likes