What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Kyle Rittenhouse should be awarded a congressional medal...

Anathema

Crotchety Olde Man
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
16,126
Reaction score
3,515
Points
290
Location
The Olden Days
These words are used in the context of his being armed.
No. That word is used in the context of him attempting to undertake policing activities that he was not trained for nor did he have any mandate to undertake. The fact that he was armed simply enflamed the situation.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
19,336
Reaction score
11,176
Points
1,140
Quite clear, yes.

I just don’t understand people putting forth the argument that Kyle should not have been there when in fact, none of them should have been there.

It’s kind of like saying everybody should have been absent that night but Kyle should have been more absent. More so by simple virtue of his having to defend himself from other people who also should have been absent.

Given that no one should have been there, it’s pointless to single out Rittenhouse in this regard.
That's simple. His was a 17 year old dumb ass kid from out of state. Not illegal, but all of us normal people that raised teenage kids, wouldn't have let him go there in a million years. Our kids would have known how we felt about it and not gone, and probably would have asked about it if they were in doubt (because at that age they tell you something about where they are going or they don't get to go, or they would have told us their intentions, we would have said NO, and our kids would have gone along with our ruling. Kids got not business at things like that. Everybody knew the demonstrations would turn into riots and riots are no place for kids. Normal parents still have control over their kid until age 18, especially living at home, as we know they don't have the best decision making at that age. Face it. He was a shitty dumb ass kid that didn't tell, didn't ask or just snuck off. No real parents would have gone along with it. He should not have been there.
Doesn't matter that the rioting assholes should not have been there. The dumb ass kid should not have been to interact with those other dumb asses.
 

Ghost of a Rider

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
1,260
Points
210
Location
South Louisiana
No. That word is used in the context of him attempting to undertake policing activities that he was not trained for nor did he have any mandate to undertake. The fact that he was armed simply enflamed the situation.

Grosskreutz was not trained law enforcement either and he was armed. He also did not have a mandate to do whatever it was he was doing. So?

As for laying blame on inflaming the situation, I’m afraid that rests squarely on Rosenbaum’s shoulders and maybe even more so on the shoulders of the dipshit who fired his weapon in the air. That single act is likely what compelled Rittenhouse to fear for his life and fire at Rosenbaum.

But no one criticizing Rittenhouse even acknowledges this incident happened or allows that it may have been the trigger (pun intended) that set everything else in motion.

Something else people on the left overlook, forget or ignore: a man arrived at CHAZ in Seattle with a trunk full of AR-style weapons and started handing them out and the left said diddly shit about it.

No one said anything then about lack of training or inflaming the situation (nor are they saying any such thing about Grosskreutz now).

So, being armed in such a situation inflames tensions or it does not. If it does then it does not explain why something like this has not happened before. Given this, there is only one reason why it happened in Kenosha but nowhere else: Rittenhouse was attacked.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
44,839
Reaction score
8,791
Points
2,070
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
That's simple. His was a 17 year old dumb ass kid from out of state. Not illegal, but all of us normal people that raised teenage kids, wouldn't have let him go there in a million years. Our kids would have known how we felt about it and not gone, and probably would have asked about it if they were in doubt (because at that age they tell you something about where they are going or they don't get to go, or they would have told us their intentions, we would have said NO, and our kids would have gone along with our ruling. Kids got not business at things like that. Everybody knew the demonstrations would turn into riots and riots are no place for kids. Normal parents still have control over their kid until age 18, especially living at home, as we know they don't have the best decision making at that age. Face it. He was a shitty dumb ass kid that didn't tell, didn't ask or just snuck off. No real parents would have gone along with it. He should not have been there.
Doesn't matter that the rioting assholes should not have been there. The dumb ass kid should not have been to interact with those other dumb asses.
More lies? He was NOT from out of state as his father and friends lived in Kenosha.

Crossing state lines in that area of the country is quite common. When I was stationed at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, we would go to our favorite bar that served deep dish pizza before Pizza Hut ever thought of making it. That bar was in Kenosha, WI. You know you cross the state line when there is a small sign on the side of the road saying "Welcome to Wisconsin".
 
Last edited:

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
19,336
Reaction score
11,176
Points
1,140
More lies? He was NOT from out of state as his father and friends lived in Kenosha.
No lie. He lived with his mother in Antioch, Illinois. Look it up. It's not like his father called him up and said, "Hey, boy. Let's go to a race riot over here. I'll be right there with ya!" His dad isn't the Wisconsin guy that bought the AR-15. Don't tell me you think this was a family approve outing. No parent is stupid enough to let a 17-year-old go armed, (or unarmed, for that matter) to a race riot.
What would you have told your 17-year-old? OK, son, have a good time. Be home by 10:00, you know Tuesday is a school night.
 
Last edited:

Ghost of a Rider

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
1,260
Points
210
Location
South Louisiana
That's simple. His was a 17 year old dumb ass kid from out of state. Not illegal, but all of us normal people that raised teenage kids, wouldn't have let him go there in a million years. Our kids would have known how we felt about it and not gone, and probably would have asked about it if they were in doubt (because at that age they tell you something about where they are going or they don't get to go, or they would have told us their intentions, we would have said NO, and our kids would have gone along with our ruling. Kids got not business at things like that. Everybody knew the demonstrations would turn into riots and riots are no place for kids. Normal parents still have control over their kid until age 18, especially living at home, as we know they don't have the best decision making at that age. Face it. He was a shitty dumb ass kid that didn't tell, didn't ask or just snuck off. No real parents would have gone along with it. He should not have been there.
Doesn't matter that the rioting assholes should not have been there. The dumb ass kid should not have been to interact with those other dumb asses.

You’re overlooking one very important distinction here: as irresponsible as it may be for his parents to allow him to go there, it was an adult that started the whole thing.

It was an adult that chased and attacked him for a stupid reason and it was a mob of angry adults that attacked him later; a mob that likely would have beaten the shit out of him if they had managed to subdue him.

Say what you will about irresponsibility and his being a minor but Rittenhouse did absolutely nothing to incite or instigate any of it. The adults did.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
19,336
Reaction score
11,176
Points
1,140
You’re overlooking one very important distinction here: as irresponsible as it may be for his parents to allow him to go there, it was an adult that started the whole thing.

It was an adult that chased and attacked him for a stupid reason and it was a mob of angry adults that attacked him later; a mob that likely would have beaten the shit out of him if they had managed to subdue him.

Say what you will about irresponsibility and his being a minor but Rittenhouse did absolutely nothing to incite or instigate any of it. The adults did.
I didn't overlook it. Hopefully that is one of the idiots that got shot. Immaterial to "what's wrong with him being there?" He was there before there was shooting or he was chased, or any of it.

You know, I have yet to hear one single adult, with teenage kids that has volunteered to say they would have told Lil Kyle, "Go ahead son. That sounds like a good idea. Have a good time", and gone back to reading the paper. If you say there was nothing wrong with it, why hasn't some modern paragon of parental model citizenship even put their screen name behind it?
 

Ghost of a Rider

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
1,260
Points
210
Location
South Louisiana
I didn't overlook it. Hopefully that is one of the idiots that got shot. Immaterial to "what's wrong with him being there?" He was there before there was shooting or he was chased, or any of it.

You know, I have yet to hear one single adult, with teenage kids that has volunteered to say they would have told Lil Kyle, "Go ahead son. That sounds like a good idea. Have a good time", and gone back to reading the paper. If you say there was nothing wrong with it, why hasn't some modern paragon of parental model citizenship even put their screen name behind it?

There may be some merit to the whole irresponsibility and maturity argument but my problem with it is that Rittenhouse is not the one who acted irresponsibly or immaturely.

That, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
19,336
Reaction score
11,176
Points
1,140
There may be some merit to the whole irresponsibility and maturity argument but my problem with it is that Rittenhouse is not the one who acted irresponsibly or immaturely.

That, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter.
What you mean, is he wasn't the only one to act irresponsibly. Would you let your kid go? If he went, knowing you would not approve, would you think that was acting responsibly and with maturity? I don't think so.
 

Ghost of a Rider

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
1,260
Points
210
Location
South Louisiana
What you mean, is he wasn't the only one to act irresponsibly.

No. He didn’t do anything that was more irresponsible than the armed adults in the group he was with.

But even if we say that his being there was irresponsible, his iresponsibility in just being there is not what prompted or provoked the incident.
Would you let your kid go? If he went, knowing you would not approve, would you think that was acting responsibly and with maturity? I don't think so.

No, I wouldn’t let him go. But that’s beside the point. I would not have let him go for one reason: it’s not safe.

Mobs are fickle, unpredictable and dangerous animals and I would fear that he might be hurt or killed. And guess what? That’s exactly what almost happened. That he was armed and successfully defended himself does not change that.

Rosenbaum was caught up in the mob mentality and he was mentally unstable to boot. There’s no telling what he was prepared to do to Rittenhouse if he had caught him.
Also, a fact that not many seem to be aware of: Rosenbaum was not the only person chasing Rittenhouse at the time of the first shooting. There were multiple people chasing him but Rosenbaum was the closest.

And then of course there were the second two shootings where, again, he is being chased by an angry mob. I have no doubt whatsoever that if they had gotten their hands on him, they would have beaten and kicked the shit out of him and he might very well have been the one who ended up dead, noble ideas of stopping an active shooter notwithstanding.

None of this happened because Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there. This happened because the mob does not like being denied, deterred, thwarted or disagreed with.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
19,336
Reaction score
11,176
Points
1,140
No. He didn’t do anything that was more irresponsible than the armed adults in the group he was with.

But even if we say that his being there was irresponsible, his iresponsibility in just being there is not what prompted or provoked the incident.


No, I wouldn’t let him go. But that’s beside the point. I would not have let him go for one reason: it’s not safe.

Mobs are fickle, unpredictable and dangerous animals and I would fear that he might be hurt or killed. And guess what? That’s exactly what almost happened. That he was armed and successfully defended himself does not change that.

Rosenbaum was caught up in the mob mentality and he was mentally unstable to boot. There’s no telling what he was prepared to do to Rittenhouse if he had caught him.
Also, a fact that not many seem to be aware of: Rosenbaum was not the only person chasing Rittenhouse at the time of the first shooting. There were multiple people chasing him but Rosenbaum was the closest.

And then of course there were the second two shootings where, again, he is being chased by an angry mob. I have no doubt whatsoever that if they had gotten their hands on him, they would have beaten and kicked the shit out of him and he might very well have been the one who ended up dead, noble ideas of stopping an active shooter notwithstanding.

None of this happened because Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there. This happened because the mob does not like being denied, deterred, thwarted or disagreed with.
Dude, you don't even read what you post. You said, "No. He didn’t do anything that was more irresponsible than the armed adults in the group he was with."

The No and the than in your next sentence are contradictions in the first line of your post. Besides, who said the ones he was with were acting responsibly? They not only went to a race riot, but took a kid with them, then, they failed to look out for this minor, leaving him on his own. You didn't even hear of them getting themselves into any shootouts, did you? I didn't. Maybe it was skipped by the left and right wing media, but I doubt it. Did you go? Why not?

Bingo. You would not let him go, because going to race riots is unsafe. Adults are supposed to safeguard kids they are responsible for #1 and other kids within their sphere of influence or area #2, as possible. If you bring a kid with you on purpose, to something like that YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS SAFETY AND CONTROL. You might not be responsible for the adult beside you, but if you were stupid enough to bring a kid, you don't let him out of your sight. The people that took him there were irresponsible assholes. And don't give me any fog of battle, crap. I taught it. Never leave a man behind. That's the creed. It's how a lot of men end up getting awards and decorations in the military, they never wanted, sometimes after they are dead.

The kid got lucky, not good. The idiots that attacked him were just that, IDIOTS. Else, they would not have tried to attack or disarm a scared kid up close, holding his brand new AR-15 for dear life. Good way to get yourself killed, and it did. The kid got lucky on that deal, with the specific idiots that attacked and had to be shot for the kid to live through night. They were white, thug, felons. If you get down to it. Nobody really cares if thug felons get themselves killed. At least I don't. They were white guys and not cops, so the BLM didn't care, and it was their race riot. The may have been white, but it's not like he shot a white preacher or high school principal just trying to help the kid. If he had downed three black guys (probably, if they turned out to be likewise scum) without injury to himself, that town would have been burned and been looted for another three weeks. Right or wrong, BLM would have cared about that.

He would have never been chased if he had kept his young ass at home. He would not have been on his own at a riot to get chased, if those POS adults had at least looked out for the kid they brought and made sure to take him with them when they bugged out. I am not real impressed with the straw buyer in Wisconsin that sold the weapon to a kid from a state where he was too young to have it, either. You didn't hear that he picked it up from being stored at his dad or grandparents house in Kenosha Wisconsin, did you? I didn't either.

Not a lot of people on the right, seemed to learn much from this. The kid did, I think. After it was over, in an interview, he said he was sorry he ever went and had no intention to ever go to another one. I think the part about him being a BLM supporter might be a stretch. I would not get my hopes up, of seeing him in the vicinity of another race riot. I think there are idiots out there that would like to hurt that kid. Reckon, he'd be safe starting out as a Freshman on some mid to large size college or university campus? Reckon, they would want him on their campus? Pretty sure, most of them would not want him carrying a personal weapon on campus.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
3,613
Reaction score
2,902
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
He shot one in the back. That is called a backshooter.
He didn’t shoot him in the back in the manner you are alluding to. He shot him from ahead the round went from the shoulder down the back and exited the lower back. Rosenbaum was lunging horizontally at Rittenhouse when the round that hit him in the “back” was fired. So Rittenhouse wasn’t a “backshooter” as you falsely claim.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
19,336
Reaction score
11,176
Points
1,140
He didn’t shoot him in the back in the manner you are alluding to. He shot him from ahead the round went from the shoulder down the back and exited the lower back. Rosenbaum was lunging horizontally at Rittenhouse when the round that hit him in the “back” was fired. So Rittenhouse wasn’t a “backshooter” as you falsely claim.
1637993341479.jpeg
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
3,613
Reaction score
2,902
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona

Purchasing firearms to give or sell to unauthorized persons is a felony both in Illinois and on the federal level.

It is not just “straw purchasers” who have to worry; giving inaccurate or misleading information when you complete the background check and ATF paperwork for the purchase is also a crime.
The problem with your position is that it was blown out of the water by the Rittenhouse prosecutor agreeing that it was legal for Rittenhouse to possess the rifle and agreeing with the judge about dropping the charges. So per the Court Rittenhouse is NOT an unauthorized person under the law in Wisconsin.
Now the feds might be able to go after Black on the ATF paperwork, but I doubt they’d do so in the face of the not guilty verdict.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
19,336
Reaction score
11,176
Points
1,140
So brave. :113:
:auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:You and Otis are a riot! Yeah, yeah, I'm sure Lil Kyle and all those idiots that took the kid to the race riot, were really BLM supporters, coming to the riot to support the BLM.:auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:
 

Ghost of a Rider

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
1,260
Points
210
Location
South Louisiana
Dude, you don't even read what you post. You said, "No. He didn’t do anything that was more irresponsible than the armed adults in the group he was with."

The No and the than in your next sentence are contradictions in the first line of your post.

What? Whether or not you think I’m contradicting myself, my entire argument boils down to what I see as the pointlessness of bringing up irresponsibility on Kyle’s part when it could be just as easily argued that everyone acted irresponsibly. It’s a moot point.
Besides, who said the ones he was with were acting responsibly? They not only went to a race riot, but took a kid with them, then, they failed to look out for this minor, leaving him on his own. You didn't even hear of them getting themselves into any shootouts, did you? I didn't. Maybe it was skipped by the left and right wing media, but I doubt it. Did you go? Why not?

This is also a moot point because nothing they did or did not do precipitated this incident.
Bingo. You would not let him go, because going to race riots is unsafe. Adults are supposed to safeguard kids they are responsible for #1 and other kids within their sphere of influence or area #2, as possible. If you bring a kid with you on purpose, to something like that YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS SAFETY AND CONTROL. You might not be responsible for the adult beside you, but if you were stupid enough to bring a kid, you don't let him out of your sight. The people that took him there were irresponsible assholes. And don't give me any fog of battle, crap. I taught it. Never leave a man behind. That's the creed. It's how a lot of men end up getting awards and decorations in the military, they never wanted, sometimes after they are dead.

Fine. But that still leaves us with the fact that none of this is responsible for Rosenbaum’s, Huber’s or Grosskreutz’s actions.
The kid got lucky, not good.

You may be right about that. But I never claimed he was good and I don’t even think he deserves a medal.
He would have never been chased if he had kept his young ass at home.

It would be more accurate to say that he would have never been chased if Rosenbaum had behaved like a mature adult.

Most people criticizing Rittenhouse will say that none of these people should have been there but with Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz, that’s as far as they are willing to go. At some point we have to acknowledge that their own actions got them shot or killed.


Not a lot of people on the right, seemed to learn much from this. The kid did, I think. After it was over, in an interview, he said he was sorry he ever went and had no intention to ever go to another one. I think the part about him being a BLM supporter might be a stretch.

First I would ask why you think it’s a stretch. Secondly, I would point out that, even if he said this with no real conviction, it must be pointed out that - for some reason that still escapes me - people are trying to make this about race when it had absolutely nothing to do with race and had absolutely nothing to do with BLM or even the Jacob Blake shooting.

He wasn’t there to protest or counterprotest and it’s not why he was attacked.
I would not get my hopes up, of seeing him in the vicinity of another race riot. I think there are idiots out there that would like to hurt that kid. Reckon, he'd be safe starting out as a Freshman on some mid to large size college or university campus? Reckon, they would want him on their campus? Pretty sure, most of them would not want him carrying a personal weapon on campus.

There’s no reason to think he would even try to carry a personal weapon on campus.

To sum up, we can talk about irresponsibility until we’re blue in the face and in the larger picture, that may be true.
But if we’re going to go that route then we have to go all the way and consider every preceding event and factor, all the way back to the shooting of Blake. If this had not happened there would have been no riots, thus no looting and burning, thus no reason for folks like Kyle to feel compelled to protect property.

But that is an exercise best left to philosophers.

Having an entire city whose streets are teeming and full of people who should not have been there, we have to focus on specific actions that led to the shootings. Because after all, the riots had been going on for days with no one getting shot. This means that having armed and irresponsible people roaming the streets is no guarantee there will be a shooting.

So again, we have to focus on specific actions and the specific actions responsible for this incident were those by Rosenbaum, Huber, Grosskreutz and to a certain extent, all those involved in chasing and attacking Kyle.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
53,387
Reaction score
15,091
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
No lie. He lived with his mother in Antioch, Illinois. Look it up. It's not like his father called him up and said, "Hey, boy. Let's go to a race riot over here. I'll be right there with ya!" His dad isn't the Wisconsin guy that bought the AR-15. Don't tell me you think this was a family approve outing. No parent is stupid enough to let a 17-year-old go armed, (or unarmed, for that matter) to a race riot.
What would you have told your 17-year-old? OK, son, have a good time. Be home by 10:00, you know Tuesday is a school night.

Too bad for your narrative - always assuming you ever listen to any facts when you're busy parroting talking points - but Kyle actually went to Kenosha earlier that day to work, then clean grafitti.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
83,146
Reaction score
20,981
Points
2,220
When it comes to criticism of stupidity, lack of self-discipline, poor upbringing, and criminal behavior, I keep no reserves and don't hold back. The BLM (a worthless, hypocritical, racist organization based on a false, but emotionally catchy marketing motto) rioting assholes should have stayed home, or at least gone home at dark and gotten off the streets.
I also understand (whether true or not) many BLM leaders have traveled for state to state, city to city at these horrific events to speak and rally the crowds at demonstrations. Back in my day, they were called "Outside Agitators" and if I am not mistaken, became targets of FBI investigation for possible prosecution on just about any charge possible, which didn't hurt my feelings a bit.
Did I make my position clear?


Very good. Strange that we see no evidence that the FBI has agreed with your obvious wisdom and targeted these BLM organizers, or their organization.

I can honestly say, right now, that putting you in charge of the FBI, would be an improvement, that I could support.

If part of your agenda would be infiltrating BLM. And thus I assume, Antifa.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$120.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top