Trump speaks on the Rittenhouse case

ThatRobGuy said:

I dunno...I don't think the onus should always be on the side of people who don't want to see the city torn up to "do the reasonable thing and stay home"

I think there's a reasonable right to defend property.

My brother's a business owner...if there were some sort of mild-moderate unrest in the area where it is, I don't think it's "unsensible" to go there and help him make sure some random nutjob doesn't bust out all of his windows.

The "insurance will cover it" argument is one that I think people use to freely without honest consideration of what that entails...or they're simply people who've never had to deal with property insurance adjusters before lol.

Click to expand...

cow451 said:

Rittenhouse had no business there. He had no personal stake and nothing to offer except for more violence. He was thrill seeking. He was stupid at best, reckless at worst.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

But couldn't the same be said of the 3 people he engaged that night?

I mean, it's a riot...nobody has any business being there. If that's going to be the standard, then we need to condemn literally everyone who showed up.

What was Rosenbaum doing there? He'd just been released from a mental institution earlier that day, and was recorded on video 2 hours prior, using the N-word gratuitously...safe to say "Black Lives Matter" wasn't all that important of a cause to him and he may have been out there "thrill seeking as well"? I may not be up on all of the "rules" regarding what's PC (it changes daily), but I know enough to definitively say that a white boy using the N-word is a "no go".

Same with Huber and Grosskreutz...I don't think an "emotionally charged" protest is a good environment for either of those guys considering their backgrounds.

There's a good chance that if those 3 guys (who also had no business there) stayed home that night, Kyle Rittenhouse would still be a unknown figure.

Is it possible that maybe...just maybe... some people on the left were the initial aggressors on that night? The jury seemed to think so.

Click to expand...

Thatgirloncfforums said:

It seems like Kyle was simply protecting himself, so I don't necessarily have issue with what he did.
I am concerned however, about the 'fan base' surrounding Kyle (not his fault), who regard him as some sort of hero.
Self defense is a necessity at times, but it's still wrong to kill or hurt someone. That should never be celebrated as just.

Click to expand...

Thatgirloncfforums said:

I am concerned however, about the 'fan base' surrounding Kyle (not his fault), who regard him as some sort of hero.

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

Back in the Rodney King Riots happened in 1992, one thing that stood out when businesses were being looted and burned, and people were being assaulted and killed (50 people ended up dead), Korean store owners armed themselves and stood watch to keep their businesses safe, and they were very effective at it. The rioters wisely went elsewhere.
Why Are Moms Like Me Being Called Domestic Terrorists?

Click to expand...

*Starlight* said:

From what I’ve read about the events in this case, it seems to me that he can easily be described as a hero. It was a dangerous place, but he still came there out of his own free will to help out. He offered medical support to people, cleaned up graffiti, and put out fires. Before he was attacked, he was putting out a fire that the arsonists started near a gas station. I’m not really sure how that act could be regarded as anything other than heroic. That could have been a disaster if the fire continued.

Click to expand...

cow451 said:

As I said in another thread, he was an immature thrill-seeker with a deadly weapon.

Click to expand...

rambot said:

he's pretty wrong.

Trump is arguing that individuals should be vigilante's without check. I'm sorry but if you can't see how that would be more than a bit detrimental to American society, you should maybe look around.

Click to expand...

Hvizsgyak said:

But if the Democrats want to defund the police, who is to defend the people? It's not vigilantism it's defending oneself.

Click to expand...

High Fidelity said:

Simply protecting himself from the situation he forced.

Big difference.

Click to expand...

cow451 said:

However going there does not.

Click to expand...

*Starlight* said:

From what I’ve read about the events in this case, it seems to me that he can easily be described as a hero. It was a dangerous place, but he still came there out of his own free will to help out. He offered medical support to people, cleaned up graffiti, and put out fires. Before he was attacked, he was putting out a fire that the arsonists started near a gas station. I’m not really sure how that act could be regarded as anything other than heroic. That could have been a disaster if the fire continued.

Click to expand...

*Starlight* said:

What? Your statement doesn’t address my post at all

Click to expand...

Hvizsgyak said:

Why? Many Americans are tired of these riots that do millions of dollars worth of destruction and nobody is held accountable (except if you riot in front of the Capitol). If there is a problem we truly need to talk about it and come up with a solution. And stop Republicans and Democrats from just yakking and yakking and yakking the problem to death. Hence the reason for the rioting on the Capitol. These two parties do NOTHING to help the average citizen.

Click to expand...

cow451 said:

Yes it does.

Click to expand...

cow451 said:

Sorry but laws do not endorse vigilante activity. You can defend yourself and your property but you cannot use violence to correct what you mistakenly think is a political wrong.

Click to expand...