Rittenhouse Case Is Being Used To Remove The Right To Self-Defense From Regular Americans

submitted by [deleted] from youtube.com

all 42 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]IkeConn 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Not in the South. Just try that shit here.

[–]ShalomEveryone 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

lol, did you forget that three people are on trial for murdering Ahmaud Arbery? The shooter is claiming self defense, yet, here he is on trial, in the south of all places.

Shalom

✡️️

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

2 completely different cases that have zero bearing on the other.

[–]ShalomEveryone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not in the South. Just try that shit here.

Didn't you say that? Both cases are not about self defense? Well, someone in the south said he killed a guy in self defense and now he's on trial having his right to self defense questioned. lol, you guys love making stuff up as you go.

Shalom

✡️️

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is perfectly legal in my state to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. That's not stuff I made up.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

you didn't mention a concealed weapon, neither rittenhouse nor the guy in the arbery case had concealed handguns

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my state you can carry a rifle. I would not do so anywhere outside of the range or woods but you can.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (35 children)

No - the laws will remain as they are, and the laws that Rittenhouse broke are obvious. Walking with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle into a group of people and then shooting at them because you cannot handle the unarmed responses (by 2 of rhe 3), is not self defense. There are laws against it. If he walks, manslaughter like this will happen more often, regardless of the law.

[–]Thugnificent 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lmao obvious self-defense, trial is 100% political. The fact there hasn't been a mistrial from the completely corrupt prosecution is a testament to that. Hope Kyle sues the fuck out of a lot of people. Good luck to him

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

There would be no trial if R hadn't murdered and wounded people unnecessarily. There are laws against this (at least at the moment). Don't believe the lies and hype from assholes who want to promote the illegal provocation and manslaughter of (mostly) unarmed people.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the laws will remain as they are

That's the problem; they need repealed.

Walking with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle into a group of people and then shooting at them

If you'd watch the video instead of swallowing CNN's fake news, you'd realize he ran away and only shot them when they cornered him, all because he stopped them from blowing up a gas station.

unarmed responses

One of them literally had a gun, and he started running away when a rioter started shooting at him.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I refer to the videos. Ideas about the fate of the gas station are part of the Fox 'News' propaganda, and unrelated to the reasons R shot people. His killing of Rosenbaum is on video and this case alone is enough to give him a substantial manslaughter sentence.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

the unarmed responses (by 2 of rhe 3)

what were they responding to?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Provocation (R pointing his AR-semi at protestors, per the drone footage): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/15/kyle-rittenhouse-provoked-everything-prosecution-says

Anyone with a gun does not have the right to immediately murder people who are running toward him/her, as there are of course other methods of self-defense before shooting in the direction of the running person.

[–]Foidblaster9000 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

Say he had tossed his gun away from himself, how do you think that would have played out?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Not even a possibility. Listen to the DA's final statements. Anyone with a gun knows to offer warnings before attempting the manslaughter of an unarmed person.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

That's a good way to get killed.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Anyone [except /u/Zapped] with a gun knows....

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Socks thinking with their heart instead of their head.

[–]Node 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The lies of the socks account operator are deliberate, and all from the head.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Grow up, Node.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am still hopeful that there is honest, albeit it stubborn, intent behind the account, although I think they have been phoning it in lately.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

(subject-verb disagreement)

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I honestly don't know if you are a man or a woman. Should I use the word "its" instead?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

so you think rittenhouse should not have run away, instead he should have shot warning shots into the air?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Provocation (R pointing his AR-semi at protestors, per the drone footage)

timestamp/picture or it didn't happen. binger is not an objective observer.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I didn't make this up. It's part of the trial, here, and available in various other locations online, along with other videos.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The drone footage shown in court on Tuesday showed Rosenbaum, 36, following Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse suddenly turned and fired his rifle.

So they weren't 'responsing' to Kyle, they were chasing him. Brandishing a weapon is a crime. Trained legal gun owners don't go waving it around like jackasses. Like the bicep guy did. "pointing his AR-semi at protestors" never happened, aside from the very end with bicep guy, where kyle is clearly cornered.

So we're back to self defense and your 'responding' argument is empty.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

If the 'responding' argument were empty, there would not be 6 significant, appropriate charges against R. Naturally, there are laws against provoking violence and killing people without good reason. There are a number of ways he provoked the responses (one of which was pointing his gun) that caused the deaths and wounding of others. As noted in the link I mentioned above:

The drone footage shown in court on Tuesday showed Rosenbaum, 36, following Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse suddenly turned and fired his rifle. Rosenbaum was shown to fall as Rittenhouse ran around a car....

Kelley said Rosenbaum was shot four times: in the groin, hand and thigh as he faced Rittenhouse and then in the back. Prosecutor James Kraus called that the “kill shot”.

This is not self-defense, and it provoked others to respond to R, who was clearly a danger to those around him.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If the 'responding' argument were empty, there would not be 6 significant, appropriate charges against R.

Appeal to authority, or something. Face it, Rosenbaum was a rabid dog and has all of the blood on his hands. They should have kept him in the psych ward.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'll admit i know nothing about Rosenbaum, while also pointing out that absolutely nothing about him is relevant to the trial. I am not appealing to authority at all. I am appealing to all those who don't want people with guns to start shooting at random people just because the gun snowflakes are scared of us, or you, or anyone. This has nothing to do with authority. It's why we have laws against the homicides and reckless endangerment and age restructions for guns. Without those basic laws there would be anarchy, as it would be legal to gun down people the way Rittenhouse did. If you support his actions, you support the right for someone to murder you if they don't like the way you are walking toward them.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'll admit i know nothing about Rosenbaum, while also pointing out that absolutely nothing about him is relevant to the trial.

Thank you. I accept your resignation.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You "forgot" to mention that Rosembaum had verbally taunting and trying to provoke him, plus cornered and attacked him with an object while gunshot rang out from his direction. I find it odd that you start and stop blame with Rittenhouse for legally carrying a firearm. You say that he was walking around pointing at people unprovoked and that is the sole point of blame in this situation. Post video proof of that and I will support you in your argument that that is strongly irresponsible and dangerous.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying it's ok to riot, destroy property, and attack people, but it's not ok to non-lethally defend property and then lethally defend yourself if you are physically attacked with the intent to maim or kill.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"Unarmed".....I'm glad no one ever killed, maimed, or incapacitated anyone with their fists, or a chain, or a brick, or a piece of wood with solid metal projections. Its a good thing Rosembaum attacked him so he couldn't put out that fire and kill more people. And if he wasn't attacked by those three people while trying to put out that fire or get to the police line, he obviously would have shot those hundreds of people he was around all day.

/s

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Seems you're not taking this seriously.

[–]chadwickofwv 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is hard to take things seriously when the person you are conversing with is spouting complete nonsense they found while their head was buried 2 feet up cnn's ass.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And you, the paragon of virtue....

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

why you mention 2 of the 3, cuz one had a gun too and attacked rittenhouse with it?