Thought this was interesting. Also interesting is that people would still rather support a city burning organization over a kid who chose to defend a city from them and then defend his own life. I’m amazed at how the media can spin things and control folks. I saw a kid being violently attacked and actively trying to get to police before he was grounded and literally shot his attackers to stay alive. Others see a troublemaker who attacked “innocent people” and believe it or not, some are still saying he shot black people.
Kyle Rittenhouse speaking out against BLM at universities.
- Thread starter Magdump
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Rittenhouse's acquittal was cut and dried, but in fairness, there's others that were also acquitted for their deeds! You decide if they are bad or good!
OJ Simpson, Scot Peterson (Parkland Resource Officer), George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony, Robert Blake, William Kennedy Smith, Michael Jackson, etc.
This is what a corrupt media looks like and does!
I am stunned that ANY clear thinking individual turns to these slugs at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and their affiliates for unbiased reporting. I think the Russian news agency TASS would report less biased news here!
I am stunned that ANY clear thinking individual turns to these slugs at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and their affiliates for unbiased reporting. I think the Russian news agency TASS would report less biased news here!
This ^^
He needs to fade into the sunset and not try to become a hero or celebrity for what he did. Whether his intentions were good or bad, he went out looking for trouble, found trouble, and had to shoot someone over it. He did literally the #1 thing we tell all new gun owners - don't go try to play cop.
I cant see why he'd be someone anyone would want as a speaker at anything.
I agree that it would be in his best interest to not poke the bear. With today’s climate, he’d be much better off just letting it all fade over time. I can’t speak for him and what he had on his mind when he went to the protest on that day except for what he’s stated. I will never believe that standing up and defending your property or your friend’s property from a hoard of crazed individuals intent on tearing it down is “looking for trouble” and I don’t understand Kyle’s case being viewed as such. Is it because he brought a gun with him or simply because he was there? Was everyone who showed up and not part of BLM looking for trouble? Is it because he was openly carrying? Because I’ve heard people right here make that claim about others who open carry. Is it because he intervened when someone attempted to start a fire by extinguishing the fire?
Kyle didn’t pursue anyone. Every person on the street that night knew very well there was trouble because BLM was in town. So, am I to believe that in a case like that, if you don’t cower down or run and hide, you must be looking for trouble? We might as well just roll over and let them take it all then? It would be great if everyone who thinks Kyle was just looking for trouble all lived in the same area. Just in case things like BLM riots really start to erupt those of us who won’t tolerate it know where not to be.
Kyle didn’t pursue anyone. Every person on the street that night knew very well there was trouble because BLM was in town. So, am I to believe that in a case like that, if you don’t cower down or run and hide, you must be looking for trouble? We might as well just roll over and let them take it all then? It would be great if everyone who thinks Kyle was just looking for trouble all lived in the same area. Just in case things like BLM riots really start to erupt those of us who won’t tolerate it know where not to be.
In terms of deciding if they are bad or good, it helps that in Kyle’s situation everything was caught on camera. If the allegations against OJ were caught on camera I suspect it would’ve turned out differently.
Here's my dilemma - I have no problem with anyone defending property. I wish the law was even more in favor of the property owner with regard to use of force for defense. Where I have a problem is that Rittenhouse left the property he was "defending" and was roaming the streets and walking around with an AR.
"According to his testimony, Rittenhouse was on patrol along Sheridan Road south of 60th Street with another armed volunteer, Ryan Balch. While patrolling, Rittenhouse lost contact with Balch, and so turned back up Sheridan Road towards the Car Source location at 59th and Sheridan (referred to during the trial as "Car Source 2") where he had been originally posted. However, he was stopped by police stationed at the junction of Sheridan Road and 60th Street, who turned him back, saying they were not allowing anybody to cross north of 60th Street. Rittenhouse then went to the nearby Ultimate Gas Station, believing this to be a safe location."
In my opinion, he was walking around trying to "play cop." This behavior is not illegal, but he intentionally and knowingly put himself into a shitty situation where he was likely to be forced to use his rifle or have some nutjob try to take it from him. Lose-lose.
Again, I don't think Kyle committed any crimes, but I do think he made very poor decisions that poorly reflect gun owners across America.
My opinion on public open carry is also that it's generally a poor decision. I don't think it should be illegal, but there aren't many pros that outweigh the cons.
WilsonCombatant
Well-Known Member
the mob came after him and the attendees in Memphis. The police had to keep the mob from assaulting the attendees.
It's so funny looking at those people, a bunch clearly on drugs and/or totally stupid, some trans, and a bunch of people who probably don't really know what they are protesting.
I'd bet my bank account that most of those people think he shot a black person, and have no idea that he killed a child molester and woman strangler.
I was offended that one of the people he shot in self-defense had a lawyer who referred to him as an "active shooter."If that were true, then that would make him the most inactive active shooter ever! He fired very few shots and exercised excellent trigger discipline. Given that he shot the perps only once, it's clear that he was shooting to stop only.
Last edited:
I don’t let my opinions become dilemmas but I appreciate the explanation.
I followed the case closely, what the media would allow and did not find anything Kyle did to be menacing at all. I don’t remember him playing cop, but I remember him helping to clean graffiti that day with a group of other people and standing outside of a business that night where he ultimately shot his first attacker. Then he moved on trying to contact police and get away from the mob.
Poor decisions that reflect American gun owners: gun retention even after he was hit with a skateboard, shot on target on a drawn gun, never missed, no innocents hit…
I can live with that.
Hard to conceal a rifle but he made the right choice there. Better to open carry what you need than conceal something ineffective. Also, it may not have been legal for him to carry concealed. I’m content with disagreeing with your take.
All I’m gathering from your comments is that it’s wrong to stand up against a mob that wants to burn down a city. I definitely disagree with that way of thinking. How do you feel about the McKlusky’s standing outside of their home with guns when a mob broke down a gate to parade down their street? Do you think they were wrong to stand on their front steps while holding a rifle and a pistol in that circumstance?
Last edited:
machinedrummer
Well-Known Member
His rifle was only there for what he used it for. Not for patrolling and playing cop but for “when animals attack”. If he had stabbed them would it make it better to accept he defended himself? Our own 2A supporters are throwing him under the bus for exercising the very right they claim to try and protect. Just don’t use a gun I guess??? He didn’t go on a murder spree..he was violently attacked.
What he did earlier in the day is irrelevant just as I don't care what he had for breakfast that day.
I have no problem with him helping "defend" someone's business.
My sole problem with what he did is that he went out, as per his testimony, to "patrol" the streets. I assert that he was out looking for trouble and trying to "play cop."
Again, I don't think his decision to go on "patrol" is illegal, but rather I believe it to have been a poor decision.
While "patrolling," words were had with criminal nutjob #1 who (likely) followed him back near the shop he was defending. An altercation then arose forcing him to defend himself. Had he just stayed at the shop and not gone walking around with his rifle, possibly painting a target on his head, he probably wouldn't be in the public eye at all.
You and I both know that's not what I said or even alluded to.
I didn't say that and you are intentionally taking my words out of context.
Standing up against mob = good. We as a society should discourage any type of protest like that.
Not at all. I think they did the right thing.
But they stayed at their house. They didn't grab rifles and start walking around their streets looking for trouble.
So you honestly don't think he provoked the attack against him in any way, at all?
He was " patrolling " the area . He left the Auto shop and trouble found him . The owner of the shop said that he never asked him to come down . Well intentioned , but foolish . I'm glad he survived the situation but it never should have happened .
This. If he owned the property, was working for a security company or was friends or family with them I would be more understanding. He wasn’t any of the above, he went there to be involved in the **** show. The car lots were more than capable of hiring a security company but they didn’t(probably because insurance claims paid more).
He said he was "patrolling" the street. From there, you assert he was looking for trouble and trying to "play cop." What do you mean by "play cop?" I play cop while armed all the time and I'm not out looking for trouble. And there are some parts of playing cop that ordinary citizens can, and some would argue should, do. Namely keep innocent people safe from harm. Isn't that one of the justifications for constitutional carry laws? The city was trouble. Kyle didn't have to look for it. Anyone there who opposed the viewpoint of the mob had already found trouble, whether they were looking for it or not. He could have carried a handgun. He chose an AR. There are pros and cons to each. The AR could make him more of a target. But it can also serves as a deterrent. A handgun is easier to wield in close quarters but he likely wouldn't have had a lanyard to help retain it. And, in the holster, a handgun doesn't offer the same deterrence because it doesn't appear to be as threatening.
