"Christian" fundraising site raises $350000 for Kyle Rittenhouse

[Yekcidmij]

Should we all cower in our home because of what might happen to us, or should we act like men and defend our towns against Mob rule?

Does this involve being as ill trained and ill equipped as that kid was? That guy was not trained to handle protests, riots, or any sort of angry crowd, not trained how to work tactically within a team when confronted with such a thing, nor was he equipped to handle such a thing. He had no intermediate means of handling a situation like that (not to mention the total lack of logistical or command and control support), so the groups only possible response was to escalate to deadly force; in their world, there was no "use of force continuum."

Use of force continuum - Wikipedia

I would separate two things though. First, I don't think he should have been there in the first place for a variety of reasons, which at a minimum would be that he was not trained or equipped (or legally authorized) to handle that sort of situation. I'm sure there are some legitimate charges here that would stick. Second, I think the actual acts of shooting could be seen by a jury as self defense since in one case he was being chased by a guy throwing some sort of flaming object at him and in the other, one of the guys attacking him had drawn a weapon and the other was hitting him with a skateboard to attempt to get his weapon. So his actions in response to those three individuals could certainly be seen as self defense.

The whole situation is quite convoluted. His [unauthorized] presence, lack of training, and lack of appropriate equipment certainly increased the risk of deadly confrontation, and this risk became realized. So I think he was quite reckless.

 

[renniks]

Does this involve being as ill trained and ill equipped as that kid was? That guy was not trained to handle protests, riots, or any sort of angry crowd, not trained how to work tactically within a team when confronted with such a thing, nor was he equipped to handle such a thing. He had no intermediate means of handling a situation like that (not to mention the total lack of logistical or command and control support), so the groups only possible response was to escalate to deadly force; in their world, there was no "use of force continuum."

Use of force continuum - Wikipedia

I would separate two things though. First, I don't think he should have been there in the first place for a variety of reasons, which at a minimum would be that he was not trained or equipped (or legally authorized) to handle that sort of situation. I'm sure there are some legitimate charges here that would stick. Second, I think the actual acts of shooting could be seen by a jury as self defense since in one case he was being chased by a guy throwing some sort of flaming object at him and in the other, one of the guys attacking him had drawn a weapon and the other was hitting him with a skateboard to attempt to get his weapon. So his actions in response to those three individuals could certainly be seen as self defense.

The whole situation is quite convoluted. His [unauthorized] presence, lack of training, and lack of appropriate equipment certainly increased the risk of deadly confrontation, and this risk became realized. So I think he was quite reckless.

Actually I thought he did quite well considering his inexperience. Even if he had been a trained Marine, what would have he done differently? Maybe stayed with the group, but that's about all I can think off, aside from he would not have initially ran away.

"so the groups only possible response was to escalate to deadly force; "
Pulease! He was putting out a fire the thugs started and they attacked him. Where on earth do you get their only possible response was deadly force?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

...or perhaps maybe they just view the sorts of activities being endorsed by the far far left as more objectionable than an armed people defending businesses.

Even if he'd have been 21 instead of 17, and hadn't been caught punching a girl a few months prior, I suspect the same debate would still be raging. The aforementioned aspects just give people some low hanging fruit to go for.


As a fun little exercise, let's cut out the criminal backstories of all of the people involved, and just evaluate the circumstance.

In this scenario, we have 4 random guys who have no criminal backgrounds.

Random guys 1,2,3 are social activists who are mad because of polarizing social event that just occurred, and feel the the appropriate outlet is roam the neighborhood and cause random property damage "to wake people up to their anger" because "it's our right to damage other peoples' property if we're super duper mad about something"

Random guy 4 says "nope, I don't like that they're trying to do that, I'm going to stand guard out in front of the business and defend it by any means necessary so they can't do that, if those punks make a move, watch what happens"

Random guys 1,2,3 are ticked because there's someone standing in the way of what they want to do, and trash talk Random guy 1. Random guy 4, who doesn't like being trash-talked, dishes it right back.

It escalates, and leads to random guys 1,2,3 chasing random 4 four (who's armed) down the street. Random guy 1 engages him (after Random guy 1 had already been recorded multiple times that night trying to start fights with random counter-protesters), and begins chasing him and throws something at him, Random guy 4 shoots him. Random guy 2, enraged that Random guy 1 got shot, attempts to hit Random guy 4 with a skateboard, also gets shot. Random guy 3 decides it's his turn, approaches Random guy 4, with his gun drawn ready to shoot him, and before he can, Random guy 4 shoots him in the arm.


In this scenario, where none of the participants has criminal backgrounds to skew public opinion, which side is in the wrong.

It depends on what concept you find more objectionable.
A) Someone defending a business/property with a tool of lethal force, with a bit of a chip on their shoulder when it comes to the people wanting to destroy it.
B) A group of people who think they're entitled to destroy other peoples' property because they're mad and "If I'm mad, I should be allowed to tear up whatever I want with impunity", and are willing to escalate things when someone tries to prevent them from doing so.


A lot of people find B more objectionable, and that's why they're donating to Kyle's legal defense.

With everything I've learned about Kyle...he wasn't a good kid. Plenty of valid criticism to be made there.

Do I think lethal force is an appropriate response to an isolated incident property damage? No. I certainly wouldn't shoot someone just because I caught them keying my car.

However, I'd feel more threatened by the notion that says that if a bunch of "woke" 20-somethings are really really mad about what a police officer in my city did (when I had nothing to do with it), and since they're really mad, the appropriate action for me is just to get out of their way and let them burn down my store "cuz insurance" and it's okay, because "they're really mad so you have to stand by and let them vent their frustration"...when in reality, it's a political thing, and a lot of the bad actors in these scenarios aren't really all that committed to the causes they claim to be advocating for...it's just a political faction thing.

 

[cow451]

Yes that's exactly what my post was clearly expressing, my belief he should not have a lawyer. /S

Although I believe Rittenhouse let himself become a pawn of right wing extremists, he deserves the right to counsel. That said his legal bill will... surprisingly be just about the same amount as the money raised.

 

[cow451]

Even if he had been a trained Marine, what would have he done differently?

Stayed home.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Stayed home.

Would you give that advice to the rioters and looters as well?

Need to make sure we're being consistent here. The onus shouldn't always be on everyone else to stay home to "avoid escalation" while a bunch of kids go out and tear a bunch of stuff up and run up everyone else's insurance premiums. At a certain point, someone needs to tell them just to "stay home" as well.

Follow-up question, what happens if a person is "staying home" and a person's home is the thing that happens to be the random target of destruction? Still stand down and go somewhere else? Or to people have a right to take action at that point?

 

[cow451]

Would you give that advice to the rioters and looters as well?

Yup. Sure would.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Would you give that advice to the rioters and looters as well?

Certainly. I want peaceful demonstrations, not rioting and looting.

 

[Darkhorse]

What does /s mean? : OutOfTheLoop

The Sixth Amendment of our Constitution guarantees six rights to anyone accused of a crime. One of these rights is the right to counsel (to have an attorney).

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

In the mid-1960s the Miranda case established that, if the accused is unable to afford an attorney, one shall be provided by the state, at state expense.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Where on earth do you get their only possible response was deadly force?

As I said in the previous post, because they had no intermediate weapons, and so no way to escalate the use of force (no way to progress through a use of force continuum Use of force continuum - Wikipedia) - no way to reciprocate/respond in kind to the measures being used against them. All they had were firearms, as Rittenhouse stated in one of the videos, so their only way to respond beyond verbal commands was firearms.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Actually I thought he did quite well considering his inexperience.

Well, he survived, if that's what you mean by "doing well."

Even if he had been a trained Marine, what would have he done differently?

Pretty much the things I said previously. He would have worked tactically in a team, with logistical and command and control support, and with a clear plan and procedures for dealing with a riotous crowd. He would have been trained. He would have been properly equipped with intermediate weapons (batons, OC spray, tasers, non-lethal rounds, etc, etc..). He would have had authorization and thus some sort of legitimacy. He would have followed the law and the rules for the use of force. They would have engaged with the crowd differently in the verbal encounters as well.

So, had he been a trained Marine, he would have done things quite differently.

 

[JackRT]

It also would embolden attackers (such as those on the streets each night attacking people on a regular basis) to continue doing what they do.

Isn't that pretty much what he is accused of?

 

[renniks]

Stayed home.

Someone currently enlisted is required to avoid possible conflicts. But you will notice that many of the Patriots are ex military.

 

[renniks]

He would have had authorization and thus some sort of legitimacy. He would have followed the law and the rules for the use of force. They would have engaged with the crowd differently in the verbal encounters as well.

So, had he been a trained Marine, he would have done things quite differently.

Perhaps if he was part of a unit sent there, but I wasn't talking about being there with a battalion. I meant as an individual. Yes he got separated and attacked but things like that happen in war also.

 

[RushMAN]

Apparently you all believe Christian means " doormat".
Why should we not support the right to defend oneself?

Exactly, Rittenhouse is a hero for standing up to communist bullies

 

[renniks]

As I said in the previous post, because they had no intermediate weapons, and so no way to escalate the use of force (no way to progress through a use of force continuum Use of force continuum - Wikipedia) - no way to reciprocate/respond in kind to the measures being used against them. All they had were firearms, as Rittenhouse stated in one of the videos, so their only way to respond beyond verbal commands was firearms.

I thought you were talking about the protesters.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That guy was not trained to handle protests, riots, or any sort of angry crowd, not trained how to work tactically within a team when confronted with such a thing, nor was he equipped to handle such a thing

Wow. So I guess demoralizing and defunding the police had consequences after all. If only somebody had warned the left...

Oh wait!

Srsly tho, people want law and order. If the police can't provide it or won't be allowed to provide it by feckless mayors and DA's, people just might go out and get law and order for themselves. So maybe we should fund the police and actually prosecute the peaceful terrorists when they burn down cities. Who knows, that might prevent moderates and anybody on the right from going out and instituting their own brand of law and order, eh?

 

[FireDragon76]

Apparently you all believe Christian means " doormat".
Why should we not support the right to defend oneself?

Do Christians support violent vigilantes?

 

[cow451]

Someone currently enlisted is required to avoid possible conflicts. But you will notice that many of the Patriots are ex military.

Too bad that they don’t know that their fallen comrades are considered losers by the current CIC.

 

[cow451]

Do Christians support violent vigilantes?

Many seem to these days.