• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Kenosha Shooting - split from The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Everyone can agree that a 17 year old kid had no business being there. But because he shouldn't have been there doesn't mean he isn't allowed to be there. We have never held the poor decisions of the victim against them.

Once he was there he was entitled to be unmolested by the rioters. As soon as Rosenbaum pursued Rittenhouse (after threatening to kill him if he found him alone) and lunged for the weapon, it was self defense. The fact that Rittenhouse house tried to flee on multiple occasions, is all anyone should need to know ad to whether this was legal or not.

As longs as we can agree no 17 years olds should have been their, not just Rittenhouse, I can tow your line.
 
Everyone can agree that a 17 year old kid had no business being there. But because he shouldn't have been there doesn't mean he isn't allowed to be there. We have never held the poor decisions of the victim against them.

Once he was there he was entitled to be unmolested by the rioters. As soon as Rosenbaum pursued Rittenhouse (after threatening to kill him if he found him alone) and lunged for the weapon, it was self defense. The fact that Rittenhouse house tried to flee on multiple occasions, is all anyone should need to know ad to whether this was legal or not.

Neither did any of the rioters or other scumbags who decided to take advantage of the situation to cause havoc. Gage Grosskreutz for example travelled a much farther distance to Kenosha than Kyle did, and had less of a reason as Kyle had family and friends in Kenosha.

I have heard plenty of commentary on how if Kyle was black he wouldn't have gotten off, etc. without ANY proof whatsoever. I guess you say something enough people will believe it. As a example of how the public is wrong and simply repeating a line without any evidence towards it Andrew Coffee IV just got found not guilty for shooting at officers in self defense (he didn't know they were police at the time he shot at them).
 
Everyone can agree that a 17 year old kid had no business being there. But because he shouldn't have been there doesn't mean he isn't allowed to be there. We have never held the poor decisions of the victim against them.

Once he was there he was entitled to be unmolested by the rioters. As soon as Rosenbaum pursued Rittenhouse (after threatening to kill him if he found him alone) and lunged for the weapon, it was self defense. The fact that Rittenhouse house tried to flee on multiple occasions, is all anyone should need to know ad to whether this was legal or not.
I suspect thee were a lot of 17 year olds and younger there. A good chunk of the looting mobs seem to be around that age. Not to mention gangs in the US are 34% 15-17.

Even here: The eight alleged perpetrators aged between 13 and 16 are facing second-degree murder charges, though their identities are protected under the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Calgary: Each of the six youth charged face one count of aggravated assault and one count of assault.

They are between the ages of 15 and 17, and cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It’s the second so-called swarming attack by a group of teens in Canada in a matter of months.


Lots of 17 year olds fought in WWII as well.
 
Back
Top