Kyle Rittenhouse case

KoolDoon

 
Banned
Protestant
Unfortunately I have to agree. He and his mom are being controlled by deep-state shill David Hancock who is creating a lot of division in conservative circles.

Journalist Gordon Rose goes into it quite a bit here.

He mentions General Flynn. I stopped watching InfoWars for promoting Flynn, because the Flynn thing is so obviously sketchy. Very interesting that Kyle does not get that he was persecuted for being White (because con inc does not like to talk about anti-white racism).
 

NoMoreTO

Hummingbird
Catholic
A very good summary of the Rittenhouse case, with relevant quotes from Scripture to frame things up.

For Accustomed to hear and to speak without stopping to make inquiry, they repeat as random everything which comes their without any regard for the truth of it" - St. John Crystosm

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall have their fill - Matthew 5:6

Even though I've followed the case somewhat, there are parts that I have definitely missed. It helps to see it laid out in a single video. Rosenbaum yelling "nigger" beforehand was something to see, or that the guy with the skateboard was going for his gun.

 

Easy_C

Peacock
Exactly.
So what does your correct observation tell us about all these militias, even those that did their actions in His name - even though His written word commands otherwise? Reason it out to the logical conclusion, SpaceShredder - you're already half-way there.


The first century Christians made it without any armed rebellion; why would the hand of God be cut short in the centuries following?
If our God is so weak that we have to form earthly 'Christian' militias to fight in His behalf/protect ourselves, then that would make our God and religion just as pathetic and worthless as the religion of Islam and the non-existent god allah whom they serve.

 

Elipe

Pelican
Protestant
The first century Christians made it without any armed rebellion; why would the hand of God be cut short in the centuries following?
If our God is so weak that we have to form earthly 'Christian' militias to fight in His behalf/protect ourselves, then that would make our God and religion just as pathetic and worthless as the religion of Islam and the non-existent god allah whom they serve.
The same case could have been made of ancient Israel. Why did the Hebrews need to fight the Canaanites if God could just wipe them out with a plague, a flood, or a meteor storm?

Our God is the same God who stood by as Moses raised his staff in the air and blessed the Hebrew soldiers in combat, and when Moses got tired and couldn't hold the staff up anymore, the Hebrews got slain. So Moses had to get some help holding his arm up to keep the Hebrews blessed in war.

You're calling that God "weak", "pathetic", and "worthless" because He made it appear like human effort played a role. The truth is that our God clearly prefers to work through the hands of men than put on flashy firework shows in the sky. Not because He's too weak or tired to bother to do all the thunder and lightning smiting Himself, but for a couple of reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
  • He tests us and our faith and resolve. What tests faith and resolve more than requiring that the person actually step forward and do something? It's easy to claim you have faith when you can just stand back and claim that God will just zap our enemies with lightning, so there's no reason for you to do anything. This is the prevailing attitude of many modern Christians, that you can just let God do all the work and you sit back and relax.
  • Flashy shows of miracles defeat the point of faith and also frighten rather than invite love. Jesus says that we are blessed for never having personally seen Him in real life, and yet believe. And we also know from Scripture that even the presence of angels in all their splendor tends to frighten humans. God doesn't want us to be afraid of Him, He wants us to love Him.
You are also ignoring many centuries of faithful Christian soldiers who genuinely believed and still saw their military duty as a calling. Christianity is not strict pacifism. Peace is preferred, but not mandatory as it is in strict pacifism. It is better to describe what Christianity teaches with respect to being attacked and bullied as stoicism than pacifism. You can endure it stoically, but that does not preclude you from taking action to end the threat, especially if the threat is persistent after you've made peaceful attempts to deal with it (e.g. letting a man take your cloak, and he does it again, and again, and again without showing any sign of remorse or penitence - it becomes clear that this course of action is not "heaping burning coals on your enemy's head" as intended).

We are told to overcome evil with good. But is it good to simply sit there like a cow and take unlimited abuse? What of your Christian neighbors? Should you do nothing to protect them?

Is it likewise "overcoming evil with good" when a father strikes his child with a rod to discipline him, in accordance with Proverbs 13:24? So then, is all violence one-and-the-same or does motivation change the picture?

Is there a difference between vengeance and an act of self-defense?
 

No-Designation Man

Kingfisher
Other Christian
@get2choppaaa
I have made my position clear, and why. This appears to be a 'horns locked' discussion where neither of us will budge on our position.
However, I did want to respond to this:

God bless you, and I wish you well...
Based on your posting history in here, you come across as a solid member who doesn't hide what he is; so I'm going to take your words above at face value, even though we don't 'know' each other beyond meaningless pixels. And the same back to you. What I have said here is not with malice as its intent.

*Italics added to quote
 

No-Designation Man

Kingfisher
Other Christian
@Elipe
I cannot engage in any further theological side-discussion here about the issue, as I have already committed to not pursuing that (thread derailment). If you start a new thread (or dig up an existing one that's relevant), feel free to open that with your above post (1364) and we can continue there. Just make sure to use the "@" to 'summon' me when it's done, so I know where to go.
 

Truth

Pigeon
Agnostic
An outsider's take:

As someone with very little investment in this case- I'm not American, I don't own arms, I think the world would be a better place if nobody did (although I do respect the valid principle of the 2nd amendment and do agree that attempts to take this right away from Americans in the current climate should be viewed with suspicion), I do not support the inculcation of mob/militia mentality and most importantly, I have not been following the case, I just want to say, this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I became aware of the case and I learned of the basic dichotomy, self-defence or murder, and with it, ensuing outrage and derision from the appropriate sides of the issue upon announcement of the verdict. I heard the verdict, I gathered that is was something of a surprise and was bound to cause exactly the sort of division that the ruling classes thrive on- queue more rioting, protests and calls for reform (it seems that it isn't necessarily playing out like that but I think the playbook would probably read something along those lines).

So, anyway, I familiarized myself with the case a little bit and my initial assessment was of a reasonable verdict, a justifiable claim of self-defence. I remain satisfied with the outcome but have one lingering doubt: what was he doing out there with a rifle in the first place?
In my opinion, if you carry a deadly weapon, you not only have to be prepared to use it (he certainly was that) but you most likely intend/hope to use it. This was not a case of people kicking down his front door or climbing through his windows, where I accept that 'last resorts' may become necessary actions, this was a man leaving his home, where he could easily have stayed inside, and taking to the streets with a loaded gun. Ok, people are going to claim the virtues of taking action to protect your community which I can admit to some admiration for, but if you're going to do that, don't take a gun, for the love of God!
So then we have the issue of what he was protecting the community from and I have to say that the circumstances leading up to this seem woefully/willfully/suspiciously underrepresented by the media coverage, but that being said, I really haven't looked into it enough. I also didn't see the video for some time (I do not actively seek videos of death) but it was sent to me by a friend and upon watching it, I can't say that it has made the issue a great deal clearer. A grainy video from a poorly positioned, yet somehow conveniently positioned, drone which shows a chase ending in the guy taking his chance to turn around and get a shot off before calmly walking back round to check his kill. It wasn't exactly the kill or be killed situation I expected to see. I've read others on this forum say things like, 'what do you want? For him to wait until he's up on him with his hands around his throat?' Yes, that's a fair point too,and none of us knows how he might react in such a situation, so again, I remain satisfied with the verdict, particularly within the context of relevant local laws, but it does seem that the whole situation was avoidable on many, many levels. This is not to ignore the responsibility of the chaser. You chase a man with a loaded gun, you must also bear some responsibility for the outcome. Oh, and apparently he had made several threats to kill Rittenhouse already. I think this fact should probably be filed under 'hearsay' but whatever, I'm just saying, nobody is shedding any tears for this guy. But isn't that also rather convenient? Turns out the guy was the worst kind of scum there is, a convicted child molester, no less! Another incredibly convenient element of the story, sure to even further polarize the factions. Who could come out against Rittenhouse now, regardless of the painfully apparent lack of necessity of the whole situation. And poor Rittenhouse, locked up for a whole two months awaiting trial! I shouldn't make light of this because it's two months longer than I'd like to be locked up but even so, it seems faster than other high profile cases in the past (and probably far faster than the low profile ones we don't hear anything about) and not that long in relative terms. Just about long enough to make a story, I'd say. And just to go back to my original point, what was he even doing out there in the first place (with a gun)? Responses to that question I have found so far include, cleaning graffiti and administering first aid. Wow! What a guy! I wonder if he took the time to help an old lady across the road and rescue a cat from a tree.

Now you have him posing with Trump and doing interviews within days of the verdict. Well, whole thing's a set-up in my opinion.

TLDR: The MSM are constantly fabricating and propagating events to promote division and seed hatred.
 

eradicator

Peacock
Agnostic
Gold Member
An outsider's take:

As someone with very little investment in this case- I'm not American, I don't own arms, I think the world would be a better place if nobody did

"The world would be a better place if no one had arms". A corrupt and increasingly (((evil))) oligarch and government would have zero pushback to implement a more and more rigid set of rules for the proles. Vaccine passport/vaccine passport systems/mandatory forced sterilization/ is just the tip of the ice berg or a starting point. Take away everyone's guns and we are at the mercy of the (((oligarchs))) that are the money behind Washington dc.

The right to bear arms is not going to save us, but does provide us with the means to defend ourselves from (((tyrannical))) government.

(although I do respect the valid principle of the 2nd amendment and do agree that attempts to take this right away from Americans in the current climate should be viewed with suspicion), I do not support the inculcation of mob/militia mentality and most importantly, I have not been following the case, I just want to say, this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I became aware of the case and I learned of the basic dichotomy, self-defence or murder, and with it, ensuing outrage and derision from the appropriate sides of the issue upon announcement of the verdict. I heard the verdict, I gathered that is was something of a surprise and was bound to cause exactly the sort of division that the ruling classes thrive on- queue more rioting, protests and calls for reform (it seems that it isn't necessarily playing out like that but I think the playbook would probably read something along those lines).

So, anyway, I familiarized myself with the case a little bit and my initial assessment was of a reasonable verdict, a justifiable claim of self-defence. I remain satisfied with the outcome but have one lingering doubt: what was he doing out there with a rifle in the first place?
In my opinion, if you carry a deadly weapon, you not only have to be prepared to use it (he certainly was that) but you most likely intend/hope to use it. This was not a case of people kicking down his front door or climbing through his windows, where I accept that 'last resorts' may become necessary actions, this was a man leaving his home, where he could easily have stayed inside, and taking to the streets with a loaded gun. Ok, people are going to claim the virtues of taking action to protect your community which I can admit to some admiration for, but if you're going to do that, don't take a gun, for the love of God!
So then we have the issue of what he was protecting the community from and I have to say that the circumstances leading up to this seem woefully/willfully/suspiciously underrepresented by the media coverage, but that being said, I really haven't looked into it enough. I also didn't see the video for some time (I do not actively seek videos of death) but it was sent to me by a friend and upon watching it, I can't say that it has made the issue a great deal clearer. A grainy video from a poorly positioned, yet somehow conveniently positioned, drone which shows a chase ending in the guy taking his chance to turn around and get a shot off before calmly walking back round to check his kill. It wasn't exactly the kill or be killed situation I expected to see. I've read others on this forum say things like, 'what do you want? For him to wait until he's up on him with his hands around his throat?' Yes, that's a fair point too,and none of us knows how he might react in such a situation, so again, I remain satisfied with the verdict, particularly within the context of relevant local laws, but it does seem that the whole situation was avoidable on many, many levels. This is not to ignore the responsibility of the chaser. You chase a man with a loaded gun, you must also bear some responsibility for the outcome. Oh, and apparently he had made several threats to kill Rittenhouse already. I think this fact should probably be filed under 'hearsay' but whatever, I'm just saying, nobody is shedding any tears for this guy. But isn't that also rather convenient? Turns out the guy was the worst kind of scum there is, a convicted child molester, no less! Another incredibly convenient element of the story, sure to even further polarize the factions. Who could come out against Rittenhouse now, regardless of the painfully apparent lack of necessity of the whole situation. And poor Rittenhouse, locked up for a whole two months awaiting trial! I shouldn't make light of this because it's two months longer than I'd like to be locked up but even so, it seems faster than other high profile cases in the past (and probably far faster than the low profile ones we don't hear anything about) and not that long in relative terms. Just about long enough to make a story, I'd say. And just to go back to my original point, what was he even doing out there in the first place (with a gun)? Responses to that question I have found so far include, cleaning graffiti and administering first aid. Wow! What a guy! I wonder if he took the time to help an old lady across the road and rescue a cat from a tree.

Now you have him posing with Trump and doing interviews within days of the verdict. Well, whole thing's a set-up in my opinion.

TLDR: The MSM are constantly fabricating and propagating events to promote division and seed hatred.
 

Truth

Pigeon
Agnostic
"The world would be a better place if no one had arms". A corrupt and increasingly (((evil))) oligarch and government would have zero pushback to implement a more and more rigid set of rules for the proles. Vaccine passport/vaccine passport systems/mandatory forced sterilization/ is just the tip of the ice berg or a starting point. Take away everyone's guns and we are at the mercy of the (((oligarchs))) that are the money behind Washington dc.

The right to bear arms is not going to save us, but does provide us with the means to defend ourselves from (((tyrannical))) government.
Yes, I fully understand that, hence my comment in brackets- I get why the 2nd amendment is there and I respect the principle, particularly in times such as these.
But come on, a gun is designed purely as an efficient way to murder. Why should such a thing exist?
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Orthodox
Yes, I fully understand that, hence my comment in brackets- I get why the 2nd amendment is there and I respect the principle, particularly in times such as these.
But come on, a gun is designed purely as an efficient way to murder. Why should such a thing exist?
Gun culture is a part of America as much as apple pie and baseball. It pervades all out our movies/music/ect.

Many people in Europe and other parts of the world not America have accepted the commands of their oppressors to the point that they will see a gun and think it in and of itself is evil...

A tool is a tool.

A knife is designed to stab/slash/chop.

It's the person behind it that makes the issue.

There are a significant number of deaths from hands/feet and blunt objects every year... Heck people get stabbed to death with screw drivers.

The gun exists to ensure the person who's going to cause you harm is on an equal footing. Otherwise people who by their physicality and mentality being set on hyperviolence may do their way with people less capable of martial defense.
 

Truth

Pigeon
Agnostic
Gun culture is a part of America as much as apple pie and baseball. It pervades all out our movies/music/ect.

Many people in Europe and other parts of the world not America have accepted the commands of their oppressors to the point that they will see a gun and think it in and of itself is evil...

A tool is a tool.

A knife is designed to stab/slash/chop.

It's the person behind it that makes the issue.

There are a significant number of deaths from hands/feet and blunt objects every year... Heck people get stabbed to death with screw drivers.

The gun exists to ensure the person who's going to cause you harm is on an equal footing. Otherwise people who by their physicality and mentality being set on hyperviolence may do their way with people less capable of martial defense.
Yes, a tool is a tool which is given power by its user. But why do we have tools that are designed to efficiently murder?
Ok, you can say they're good for hunting animals for meat and I accept that, although I'm sure there are alternatives (including not eating meat, but that is a whole other debate), so let's suppose that guns be only used for this purpose, in which case, I might not feel the need to take this position, although I think we all know, that ship has long since sailed.
Yes, they are an equalizer, but only in the same way that not having them at all would be.

Representation in Hollywood/popular culture is certainly no benchmark of moral justification.

And yes, for those incapable of martial defence, I can see the value of a gun as form of protection, and do not begrudge those who feel the need for that in today's world, but that sad reality does nothing to mitigate my original supposition. It's more acquiescing to the fear mongering and divisionary tactics which I mentioned in my original post.
I think statistical comparisons of deaths by gun between the USA and , oh, any other country in the world will bear out my point.

Thanks for engaging in actual discourse, but respectfully, I'm not buying it.
 

planomustang

Pigeon
Agnostic

Truth

Yes, a tool is a tool which is given power by its user. But why do we have tools that are designed to efficiently murder?
Ok, you can say they're good for hunting animals for meat and I accept that, although I'm sure there are alternatives (including not eating meat, but that is a whole other debate),

Tools are inanimate objects, incapable of murder. Only a human can be convicted of murder, regardless of the tool used. Your mindset is that of a three-year old. BTW, my cousin was convicted of murder. He used a hammer, and it was efficient (just two strikes). Were hammers designed to be efficient "murder tools"?

I am too new here, to say what I really think about Truth, so I will just move along.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
The overwhelming majority of the gun violence occurs in a small number of Leftist controlled urban centers. If you remove those the rest of the country has a relatively low level of violence compared to other places.

And the short answer on why we have them now is because everyone else does. The genie is out of the bottle and getting someone else to not have guns requires an even bigger or meaner bully take them.

For all practical purposes they’re also a numbers equalizer and not just in terms of physical prowess. You’ve got much better odds In a 2v1 gunfight than you do In a 2v1 beat down.



Edit: I was going to guess he had registered no later than June 2021 (which for some reason is when a ton of these glow-posters started to show up). It was a bit later than that but I wasn’t wrong.
 

Truth

Pigeon
Agnostic
Tools are inanimate objects, incapable of murder. Only a human can be convicted of murder, regardless of the tool used. Your mindset is that of a three-year old. BTW, my cousin was convicted of murder. He used a hammer, and it was efficient (just two strikes). Were hammers designed to be efficient "murder tools"?

I am too new here, to say what I really think about Truth, so I will just move along.
Hammers are designed to push nails through material thus facilitating the construction of objects. They may also be used for reshaping metal or, if the user is so inclined, committing the act of murder. Many everyday items which were designed for practical purposes, such as a pencil, fork or a corkscrew can be repurposed for homicidal intentions if in the hand of an unstable/malevolent user.

A gun is designed to project an explosive metal capsule at high velocity into a living target with lethal effect. Please let me know if there are any other purposes, I obviously don't have the well honed powers of logic and reasoning that you demonstrate here.
 

Truth

Pigeon
Agnostic
The overwhelming majority of the gun violence occurs in a small number of Leftist controlled urban centers. If you remove those the rest of the country has a relatively low level of violence compared to other places.

And the short answer on why we have them now is because everyone else does. The genie is out of the bottle and getting someone else to not have guns requires an even bigger or meaner bully take them.

For all practical purposes they’re also a numbers equalizer and not just in terms of physical prowess. You’ve got much better odds In a 2v1 gunfight than you do In a 2v1 beat down.



Edit: I was going to guess he had registered no later than June 2021 (which for some reason is when a ton of these glow-posters started to show up). It was a bit later than that but I wasn’t wrong.
Yes, you said it right. The genie is out of the bottle, don't you think that's a tragedy? Can we put it back please? Could you even conceive of it for a moment?

And do you really think those in control stand on the left or the right? They stand for themselves and the more tools/reasons we have to kill each other, the happier they are.

What's a glow-poster?
 

planomustang

Pigeon
Agnostic
A gun is designed to project an explosive metal capsule at high velocity into a living target with lethal effect. Please let me know if there are any other purposes, I obviously don't have the well honed powers of logic and reasoning that you demonstrate here.

You have already proved you inability at logic and reasoning. But I will take the challenge.

Here is your first statement, which is not backed up.
A gun is designed to project an explosive metal capsule at high velocity into a living target with lethal effect.

First, guns do not shoot an explosive metal capsule. Where did you get that idea?

at high velocity into a living target with lethal effect
Second, did you know there are purposely designed, low velocity rifles, that are used for hunting? Moreover, do you know why?

I obviously don't have the well honed powers of logic and reasoning

That is the understatement of the world. Congratulations.
 

Truth

Pigeon
Agnostic
You have already proved you inability at logic and reasoning. But I will take the challenge.

Here is your first statement, which is not backed up.
A gun is designed to project an explosive metal capsule at high velocity into a living target with lethal effect.

First, guns do not shoot an explosive metal capsule. Where did you get that idea?

at high velocity into a living target with lethal effect
Second, did you know there are purposely designed, low velocity rifles, that are used for hunting? Moreover, do you know why?

I obviously don't have the well honed powers of logic and reasoning

That is the understatement of the world. Congratulations.
Ok, I don't fully know how guns are made or how they work but doesn't a bullet have gunpowder in it? Or are they just solid metal? Can you get both types? Don't some bullets explode upon impact? Anyway, you don't have to answer these questions, they're just to clarify my confusion/lack of technical knowledge.
Point 1 conceded.

No, I did not know that there are low velocity rifles which are used for hunting and I don't know why. I'd be interested to hear the explanation.
Point 2 conceded.

I clearly understand more about fallacious reasoning than you do but perhaps not as much about how to avoid a constructive response. Are you a politician?
Point 3... you can extrapolate the rest.

So, given that my technical knowledge is lacking, please allow me to restate the question, and I hope you will be able to accept that it remains in the spirit of my original position.

Do guns have any other purpose than to kill or maim a living target?

"Oh, now he's saying kill OR MAIM, ha look at this crazy anti-murder guy moving the goalposts".

Please don't bring up the sport of target practice because it's not within the context that I address and it will only divert from the real discussion. Thanks.
 
Top