Kyle Rittenhouse — The Truth in 11 Minutes

submitted by Trulytimes from (trulytimes.com)

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong! We need more people like him — patriots who are willing to fight against Communism for their Nation — their People — and do what needs to be done. If this man is convicted of any crime whatsoever, he should be pardoned. Hell, I'd give him a medal!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]BitterRedditRefugee 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    He'll probably like that being that he's effeminate.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [removed]

      [–]BitterRedditRefugee 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      You got that right, I saw the video of him trying to beat a girl up and he failed, that's why he needed to hit the streets with a long gun that night, he wanted to feel strong, he wanted to feel like a man because with his fists, he cant even drop a little white girl to the ground when he was fighting.

      [–]wrongthink 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      If I was a weak out of shape wimp I would also want to bring protection against a violent mob. If I was a violent mob member I would want to avoid antagonizing people who brought guns. But I'm not there so what do I know.

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

      need more of them, police are standing down to teach sjw politicians a lesson but in the meantime that hurts innocents, but they can't defund volunteer militias.

      [–]Captzapheart 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

      Do all medics attending protests carry firearms, if so I think I can see a problem. Truly news looks questionable imo.

      [–]Carnate 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

      In dangerous areas, they would.

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

      Kyle is a misled child and you are incorrect, San medicine frontiers medics who work in real war zones are not armed ...real medics....real heroes....proof you'er wrong!

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

      Navy Corpsmen 'medics for USMC' are armed with a pistol for the defense of themselves and their patients. These are real medics in real warzones.

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

      This could be a cultural difference, to my knowlage you can't both be medic and soldier outside of a war zone. Maybe I'm wrong, It's is important to have clearly defined roles without conflict of interests. A med kit and a rifle is such a conflict, you are either there to offer med assistance or your there to protect property. Kyle proved it is difficult or impossible to do both roles effectively.

      [–]StillLessons 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

      Not sure if he was operating with an organized group or on his own. In either case, from the events of the prior nights, he knew he was headed into the equivalent of a war zone. People in war zones cannot be assumed to act rationally, and self-defense is the first priority.

      Should he - a 17-year-old kid - have been there? No. He was not trained for it, and what happened was a result of him acting out a "hero" role.

      That said, once he was there, nothing that he did qualifies for the charges he is faced with. He killed nobody with any other intent than to protect his own life. There are four primary acts evident in the video once the chaos begins: first, he acted to put out fires being set by rioters; second, third and fourth he reacted to attacks against him. Never once - even for an instant - is there any evidence of him intentionally closing with anybody. When he had freedom of motion, every single time he moved to disengage. The limited number of shots fired is also frankly stunning. This kid kept his head astoundingly well - much better in fact than many (though certainly not all) fully-trained police officers have been shown to do in other incidents. He used only the force necessary to eliminate direct threats to his life, not a bit more. Quite remarkable, really. There was absolutely no "murder" that night, only self-defense.

      He shouldn't have been there in the first place, but once there, his actions truly were remarkable and demonstrate a discipline that is not remotely reflected in the punishments being leveled against him. The difference in treatment between him and his attackers says it all. This is an unjust prosecution.

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

      Bingo. I was amazed at his control

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

      My opinion is that whilst he may have been acting in self-defense, he would never have been a person of interest or even targetted if he did not open carry. His firearm is what brought attention to him in the first place.

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

      Stopping a child molester from setting a gas station on fire is what brought attention to him in the first place.

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

      I'm responding to this after having already responded to Captzapheart below, and what I say there, I repeat here. Kyle made a choice to be in that location. I disagree with that choice. One element of the choice to be there was being armed. Using a logic framework to describe this: If go there -> carry firearm for self-defense. That logic makes sense. But the logic within that decision is after the fact of the earlier question of whether it is productive for him to go there in the first place. He wouldn't have been a person of interest if he hadn't been there. Going into violent situations opens the possibility for violence. The passion of some carries them there, but the actual ensuing violence is never as noble as the image they had of it in their minds when they made the decision to attend the event.

      [–]Captzapheart 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      To compare the protests in the US to a war zone betrays a dangerous ignorance. Unless you want to compare the lack of justice the black community in the US feels with Palestinian, Syrians, Libyan, endless wars, violation of international law, resource appropriation, for 20 years and millions of lives lost. I feel sorry for Kyle, he is just another victim of this divisive attitude you and your poorly informed ilk are expressing.

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

      You are misusing the word ignorance. When I say "war zone", I mean a place where simply by being in that location, large-scale potentially lethal violence is expected. I don't mean anything more or less than that. Personally, I avoid locations like that, no matter what the cause is, whether I find it sympathetic or not. I do so because violence is inherently destructive. No solutions will come from violence ever, whatever the two (or more) sides are that engage in it. I am interested in constructive change. How can we learn to live with each other in peace? That will be decided with peaceful (this does not rule out adversarial; it just means without violence) engagement. These comment boards, for example, will do far more to solve the problems that face us than overt violence in the streets.

      With that in mind, note that in the comment to which you are responding, very near the beginning I said he shouldn't have been there. By being there, he was adding his personal energy to a violent situation. He obviously would disagree with me and say that it was worth risking violence to defend against the destruction (which we all witnessed) the rioters bore responsibility for.

      None of this has anything to do with ignorance or being poorly informed. You and I may interpret the situation differently, but the information that matters to what I said in my first comment is entirely contained within the events on that video. You've watched it; I've watched it. You bring to what you see in the video your interpretation of the events of the past 60 years; I bring my interpretation.

      When someone disagrees with you, that doesn't make them ignorant and you wise, and it also doesn't make you ignorant and them wise. It means you disagree. Someone can have all the same information you have and still interpret it differently. Each side is accusing the other of being "divisive". As long as neither side is willing to acknowledge the possibility that the other has a valid perspective (even if their perspective and the other are in disagreement, both can have validity. That's what negotiation is, finding a way to bring two disagreeing but valid perspectives to a middle ground), then both are equally "divisive".

      Try not assuming that those who disagree with you are divisive and you are for tolerance. That assumption in itself sadly only feeds the divisive environment we are all navigating.

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

      For the most part everything you say is sound, when someone is willing to kill for idiologies.... You've over stepped the mark. My fear is the right are now more militant than Isis, a lot of the defence of Kyle is questionable, in the eyes of the law self defence has to be proportionate the fact two protesters ( who have every right to protest ) are dead and one man lost a limb is not proportionate. This is where you and me will proberly disagree, property damage does not warrant execution. A riot/violent protest is no place for a child, in this regard the police are some what culpable as they should have taken his weapon or sent him home. I apologise if I use the word ignorance too freely.

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

      From what I read from you, you have greater sympathy for the protesters; I have greater sympathy for the people who came out to try to protect their property and businesses from rioting (this is their livelihoods; these are not the ultra-rich here. Many whose businesses were destroyed will suffer genuine hardship because of these losses). We both agree that the violence is not helping either side. You talk to those you know. I talk to those I know. It's the best we can do.

      edit to add: I appreciate very much your apology regarding ignorance. In my comments in the months I've been here, I've had to backtrack as well more than once. Only when we can take a step back and take a breath can we make progress. Thank you.

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

      You are correct about businesses and livelihoods, just to clarify the protesters position, I think the point of property damage is to get the insurance companies to lobby on behalf of the protesters after all they have the ear of the politicians, this is the result of the people's voice being inafecttual. If you can have a protest and the people concerns are addressed in some way then there should be need for property damage. Also I'm glad you accepted the apology in the spirit it was given.