Kyle Rittenhouse says he is destroying the AR-15 rifle he used in Kenosha and doesn't want anything to do with it

[Rigby5]

He was holding a weapon it was illegal for him to have.

But you leftists always seem to ignore that part.

On purpose.

Wrong.
Grosskreutz had a concealed carry permit, so was not a felon or anything else.
The permit had expired, but that is a civil violation, not a criminal offense.

 

[Rigby5]

You wouldn't mind someone swinging one at you, then.

Well I would not shoot someone who did.

 

[daveman]

Wrong.
The principle of not legally being allowed to escalate violence is a basic tenet that will always be true.
The only exception is as Massad correctly points out, is if there is a huge disparity between the 2 involved in the conflict.
{...
If you have studied deadly force law or have been reading this column for a while, you are familiar with the concept of disparity of force. When one is attacked violently by an ostensibly unarmed person, if the circumstances are such that the continued assault is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, you are allowed to use deadly force to stop him.

The most obvious elements of disparity of force would include force of numbers if you are attacked by multiple opponents; a dramatic size/weight/strength difference that favors the attacker; the able-bodied savagely attacking the handicapped, even if the handicap has taken place in the course of the instant assault; an adult attacking a small child; and in many cases a male attacking a female. Another element could be known or obvious high skill in unarmed combat on the assailant’s side of the conflict.
...}

Kyle was not attacked by more than 1 person at a time, nor was any weapon used against him.
And in fact, it was his provocative possession of the rifle that precipitated the conflict entirely, so was entirely his fault.
So he had no legal justification for escalation to lethal force.

Man, when you pick the wrong side of an issue, you jump on it with both feet, don't you?

You're not changing any minds. Reasonable people support the not guilty verdict. Emotional leftists do not.

But it changes nothing, and it matters not at all.

 

[daveman]

Wrong.
Grosskreutz had a concealed carry permit, so was not a felon or anything else.
The permit had expired, but that is a civil violation, not a criminal offense.

So, it's terrible that someone from outside Kenosha brought a weapon to a protest, but it's okay if someone from outside Kenosha brought a weapon to a protest.

I'd ask you to rationally explain the glaring dichotomy, but you can't.

 

[daveman]

Well I would not shoot someone who did.

Uh huh.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong.
Grosskreutz had a concealed carry permit, so was not a felon or anything else.
The permit had expired, but that is a civil violation, not a criminal offense.

Try that in NYC and see how far it gets you.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Kyle was found NOT GUILTY. Does anybody think that rehashing the whole story over and over in a political forum is going to change that? Is someone's sense of righteous indignation somehow justified by jawing on and on about something you cannot change? If you keep whining on and on, do you actually think that jury is going to reconvene and decide they made a mistake in acquitting Kyle?

The smug leftists are very generous with their judgement of, "The election's over. Your boy lost. Get over it" and now I want to say "The trial is over. He was found by due process of law to be not guilty. Get over it."

I've come to the conclusion that those two are just idiot trolls and am refusing to indulge them with replies. No one with the ability to remember to breathe could be as stupid as they pretend.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Wrong.
Grosskreutz had a concealed carry permit, so was not a felon or anything else.
The permit had expired, but that is a civil violation, not a criminal offense.

A

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.
The principle of not legally being allowed to escalate violence is a basic tenet that will always be true.
The only exception is as Massad correctly points out, is if there is a huge disparity between the 2 involved in the conflict.
{...
If you have studied deadly force law or have been reading this column for a while, you are familiar with the concept of disparity of force. When one is attacked violently by an ostensibly unarmed person, if the circumstances are such that the continued assault is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, you are allowed to use deadly force to stop him.

The most obvious elements of disparity of force would include force of numbers if you are attacked by multiple opponents; a dramatic size/weight/strength difference that favors the attacker; the able-bodied savagely attacking the handicapped, even if the handicap has taken place in the course of the instant assault; an adult attacking a small child; and in many cases a male attacking a female. Another element could be known or obvious high skill in unarmed combat on the assailant’s side of the conflict.
...}

Kyle was not attacked by more than 1 person at a time, nor was any weapon used against him.
And in fact, it was his provocative possession of the rifle that precipitated the conflict entirely, so was entirely his fault.
So he had no legal justification for escalation to lethal force.

When the child rapist tried to grab his rifle, he created the threat of death or great bodily injury...what part of that do you not understand?

Just like when you try to disarm a cop, they are justified in shooting you.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.
No one was approaching him until he started shooting.
Only then did people start to approach him, because they wanted to stop the deadly shooting.

Grosskreutz was not "wearing a gun".
It was under his shirt, tucked into his pants at the belt.
He did pull the gun out, but as everyone can see in the images, he was not pointing it at Kyle when Kyle illegally pulled the trigger.

Wrong, the child rapist chased him and tried to grab his rifle.....the eyewitness, the reporter from the Daily Caller who was at the first attack testified to this under oath...

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.
No one was approaching him until he started shooting.
Only then did people start to approach him, because they wanted to stop the deadly shooting.

Grosskreutz was not "wearing a gun".
It was under his shirt, tucked into his pants at the belt.
He did pull the gun out, but as everyone can see in the images, he was not pointing it at Kyle when Kyle illegally pulled the trigger.

Look.......grosscrud admitted, in court, under oath that he pointed the gun at kyle....what part of that is so hard for you to understand....?

 

[Bleipriester]

Wrong.
No one was approaching him until he started shooting.
Only then did people start to approach him, because they wanted to stop the deadly shooting.

Grosskreutz was not "wearing a gun".
It was under his shirt, tucked into his pants at the belt.
He did pull the gun out, but as everyone can see in the images, he was not pointing it at Kyle when Kyle illegally pulled the trigger.

When somebody approaches me pulling a gun, I will shoot.
The court found:
Rosenbaum, child rapist and mad man just released from the mad house wanted to grab Rittenhouse´s rifle. Rosenbaum wasn´t brave, he was mad, his criminal record barred him from buying his own rifle for life.
Huber threatened his own family to burn them down, he stabbed his brother in the ear. He was a mad man and he only showed up at the protest because he thought he could wreck havoc unpunished. He attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard. Very mad. And deadly.
Grosskreutz was the only one of the three who was there for the political message. He also attended several other black manifestations and carried medical supplies with him to be there in case things go violent. He cannot be blamed for what he did, very likely he thought Rittenhouse is a racist mad man and wanted to intimidate him. That´s a brave action.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The video link was totally about the Amaud Arbury case, and was totally wrong.

Not Guilty
Your opinion does not matter

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you want to retain the new precedent where everyone should start bringing rifles to any demonstration, protest, etc.?

Not Guilty
Your opinion does not matter

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong.
The principle of not legally being allowed to escalate violence is a basic tenet that will always be true.

Not Guilty
Your opinion does not matter

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong.
No one was approaching him until he started shooting.

Not Guilty
Your opinion does not matter

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Grosskreutz had a concealed carry permit, so was not a felon or anything else.
The permit had expired, but that is a civil violation, not a criminal offense.

The EXPIRED permit means he had no permit and was carrying illegally which is a criminal offense not a civil one.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Anyone can accidentally die from almost anything.
But the point is a skate board is extremely unlikely to be able to kill, and almost never does, so then lethal retaliation is NOT warranted.

Look, I have CCW permits, took the courses, passed the tests, so I know what I am talking about.
Anyone can easily prevent a skateboard from doing lethal harm, just by ducking or blocking with an arm.
Its a no brainer.
You can't even shoot someone with a baseball bat.
You can't escalate.

The exception would be someone frail or elderly, who could not defend themselves from a physical attack, and then would have to escalate.
Kyle himself was not at risk.
He caused the risk himself by the provocative act of bringing the gun.
They he increased the provocation by mingling alone with the demonstrators, in a manner that would likely be seen as deliberate intimidation.
Kyle could easily have found safety at any time, without shooting, by simply moving back to private property or going over to where the police were.
Shooting was not at all necessary or a reasonable act.

Wrong.
Any improvised weapon is a deadly weapon including a bat. It is legal self defense to use lethal force on someone attackking you with such weapons.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The video link was totally about the Amaud Arbury case, and was totally wrong.
The claim was that a construction site was badly and continually vandalized in the neighborhood, and that is not at all true.
Amaud Arbury and many others, including children, were on video walking through the construction site, but NO ONE too or harmed anything.

And no, Kyle was not harmed by the skate board.
It is very hard to use a skateboard as a weapon because it is too wide to hold onto.
So there was no excuse to escalate to lethal force over the skateboard.

The skateboard was a weapon which can cause seriuous and lethal harm he was justified to use lethal force against his attacker

 

[Papageorgio]

Kyle Rittenhouse said he intends to destroy the AR-15 rifle he used in Kenosha.

During an appearance on the conservative podcast "The Charlie Kirk Show," on November 30, Rittenhouse, 18, said that the firearm is "being destroyed right now."

"We don't want anything to do with that," Rittenhouse told podcast host Kirk.

Rittenhouse was previously on trial for fatally shooting Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and injuring Gaige Grosskreutz, during the August 25 Black Lives Matter protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year. He was acquitted of five felony charges, including first-degree intentional homicide.

Students at the university called this week for Rittenhouse to be removed from online classes, calling him a "high-profile right-wing fascist icon."

Kyle Rittenhouse says he's destroying the AR-15 rifle he used in Kenosha and doesn't want anything to do with it

In a podcast, Rittenhouse said the weapon, which he used to fatally shoot two men and injure another, was being "destroyed right now."

news.yahoo.com

The gun didn't shoot those people.

Do you think it wise to destroy the gun?

Seems like he has regrets, even in self defense most people have a huge burden to carry after taking someone else’s life. It seems he is proving the left wing nuts wrong.