Rittenhouse violated the Media's screwy rules of engagement

[Peter J Barban]

I venture to guess that more than 90% of the people who think Kyle Rittenhouse did something morally wrong have been overly influenced by the media's screwy rules of engagement. Some of them include:

1. Protesters don't have the right to destroy a community, but if they do, the government must give them space to do so. Common citizens are wrong to stop the destruction.

2. Protestors have no right to take over a community, but if they do, anyone who opposes them is a provoker who deserves punishment.

3. Protestors have no right to violently assault you, but if they do, you should just passively take it.

4. Protestors should not face consequences when they act in concert with their principles, those opposed to the protestors should always face the full wrath of the law and the public.

Because Rittenhouse famously violated these rules, the media will never forgive him.

This cannot promote justice, it can only lead to tyranny and rebellion.

 

[Derek1111]

I venture to guess that more than 90% of the people who think Kyle Rittenhouse did something morally wrong have been overly influenced by the media's screwy rules of engagement. Some of them include:

1. Protesters don't have the right to destroy a community, but if they do, the government must give them space to do so. Common citizens are wrong to stop the destruction.

2. Protestors have no right to take over a community, but if they do, anyone who opposes them is a provoker who deserves punishment.

3. Protestors have no right to violently assault you, but if they do, you should just passively take it.

4. Protestors should not face consequences when they act in concert with their principles, those opposed to the protestors should always face the full wrath of the law and the public.

Because Rittenhouse famously violated these rules, the media will never forgive him.

This cannot promote justice, it can only lead to tyranny and rebellion.

It might be more simple. People who are armed but untrained should leave it to the strategic expertise of the operational command, who is trained to assess the risks of engagement and non-engagement. Otherwise what's to stop an untrained idiot with a lethal weapon from turning up and enforcing their own view of justice?

 

[Peter J Barban]

It might be more simple. People who are armed but untrained should leave it to the strategic expertise of the operational command, who is trained to assess the risks of engagement and non-engagement. Otherwise what's to stop an untrained idiot with a lethal weapon from turning up and enforcing their own view of justice?

I can sympathize with that view, but the same people who critique the untrained Rittenhouse give armed protesters a pass. Why is there no outrage for protesters, who use guns during riots?

No, it's just like I said: protesters get a pass from the media and often from the law.

 

[Derek1111]

I can sympathize with that view, but the same people who critique the untrained Rittenhouse give armed protesters a pass. Why is there no outrage for protesters, who use guns during riots?

No, it's just like I said: protesters get a pass from the media and often from the law.

I don't think anyone should criticise peaceful protest, or endorse violent protest.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I don't think anyone should criticise peaceful protest, or endorse violent protest.

Your post highlights another screwy judgment of the media.

1. Kenosha was called a peaceful protest when there were millions of dollars of damage done to the community, and this was not covered by insurance.

2. The Jan Protest at Washinton DC, was far more peaceful, did far less damage, and was much shorter, with no arson, yet it was called an insurrection.

The media clearly doesn't consider all "peaceful" protests as above criticism. I'm glad you are different. Clearly, you won't be criticizing the mostly peaceful protesters in the Capital.

 

[Derek1111]

Your post highlights another screwy judgment of the media.

1. Kenosha was called a peaceful protest when there were millions of dollars of damage done to the community, and this was not covered by insurance.

2. The Jan Protest at Washinton DC, was far more peaceful, did far less damage, and was much shorter, with no arson, yet it was called an insurrection.

The media clearly doesn't consider all "peaceful" protests as above criticism. I'm glad you are different. Clearly, you won't be criticizing the mostly peaceful protesters in the Capital.

I criticise violent protest (including at Kenosha, including at the Capitol) and endorse the right to peaceful protest (again, including both). This shouldn't be a hard concept to explain, so I hope I am not making it needlessly complicated.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I criticise violent protest (including at Kenosha, including at the Capitol) and endorse the right to peaceful protest (again, including both). This shouldn't be a hard concept to explain, so I hope I am not making it needlessly complicated.

I respect your position.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

It's simple. "Kyle Rittenhouse violated the Safari Principle." (look up the quote)

He was not supposed to "get out of the car during the safari." He broke the rules of the safari, and now the "animals" are after him.

"Animals" in the spiritual sense.

 

[iarwain]

4. Protestors should not face consequences when they act in concert with their principles, those opposed to the protestors should always face the full wrath of the law and the public.

And the above only applies if the protestors are from the left wing.

Otherwise what's to stop an untrained idiot with a lethal weapon from turning up and enforcing their own view of justice?

Rittenhouse was attacked, as the video evidence clearly showed.

 

[Derek1111]

And the above only applies if the protestors are from the left wing.


Rittenhouse was attacked, as the video evidence clearly showed.

I am not making a point about whether he was attacked first or not. He was (is?) an untrained person and was carrying a weapon in a hostile environment. When I say "untrained" I mean he had no formal (or probably any) training in management of hostile environments, including approaches to de-escalation.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I am not making a point about whether he was attacked first or not. He was (is?) an untrained person and was carrying a weapon in a hostile environment. When I say "untrained" I mean he had no formal (or probably any) training in management of hostile environments, including approaches to de-escalation.

What a dumb argument.

St. King David was "untrained" and through divine intervention he brought a giant down.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't think anyone should criticise peaceful protest, or endorse violent protest.

Problem is.... burning, looting, smashing and other violence is called "mostly peaceful" in this clown world, if you are following the media agenda. Just like the OP stated.

Peaceful is walking around with signs and making speeches. Soon as you break a window, light a molotov cocktail, or toss a brick.... no longer a protest... it's vandalism.

Rittenhouse was totally misrepresented by the very first reports by the media. Once the media went down the wrong path... the ain't big enough to admit it and state their knee jerk actions.

It's sad when a "jury of your peers" in a court of law is not enough.

If people would take a good look at the facts, they would realize that Rittenhouse was within his rights of the country and state.

Think, think think... If it was your son.... what would you want for the verdict?

 

[JacksBratt]

Your post highlights another screwy judgment of the media.

1. Kenosha was called a peaceful protest when there were millions of dollars of damage done to the community, and this was not covered by insurance.

2. The Jan Protest at Washinton DC, was far more peaceful, did far less damage, and was much shorter, with no arson, yet it was called an insurrection.

The media clearly doesn't consider all "peaceful" protests as above criticism. I'm glad you are different. Clearly, you won't be criticizing the mostly peaceful protesters in the Capital.

Very true.

It would be best if people just turned off the mainstream media.... They spew lies and leave out pertinent items of truth.

People are waking up though. CNN's ratings are in the tank and the majority stock holder just stated that he would like the company to start doing real journalism again. That's an idea...

 

[JacksBratt]

I am not making a point about whether he was attacked first or not. He was (is?) an untrained person and was carrying a weapon in a hostile environment. When I say "untrained" I mean he had no formal (or probably any) training in management of hostile environments, including approaches to de-escalation.

I wonder if the guy he shot in the arm... after he pointed a pistol at Rittenhouse... was "trained" with the use of a handgun.

 

[IWalkAlone]

It might be more simple. People who are armed but untrained should leave it to the strategic expertise of the operational command, who is trained to assess the risks of engagement and non-engagement. Otherwise what's to stop an untrained idiot with a lethal weapon from turning up and enforcing their own view of justice?

No one enforced justice. Thats a falsely narrative. Kyle defended himself legally.

 

[IWalkAlone]

I can sympathize with that view, but the same people who critique the untrained Rittenhouse give armed protesters a pass. Why is there no outrage for protesters, who use guns during riots?

No, it's just like I said: protesters get a pass from the media and often from the law.

And Why was there no outrage for the guy who chased Kyle with a gun?

 

[IWalkAlone]

It's simple. "Kyle Rittenhouse violated the Safari Principle." (look up the quote)

He was not supposed to "get out of the car during the safari." He broke the rules of the safari, and now the "animals" are after him.

"Animals" in the spiritual sense.

I thought he was cleaning grafitti?

 

[IWalkAlone]

I am not making a point about whether he was attacked first or not. He was (is?) an untrained person and was carrying a weapon in a hostile environment. When I say "untrained" I mean he had no formal (or probably any) training in management of hostile environments, including approaches to de-escalation.

Most gun owners don't have that training. Its simple, don't attack and you don't get shot. It doesn't take a highly trained officer to protect one's life. Kyle did fine.

 

[IWalkAlone]

I wonder if the guy he shot in the arm... after he pointed a pistol at Rittenhouse... was "trained" with the use of a handgun.

I wonder why the liberals are not criticizing him?

 

[IWalkAlone]

Why are people criticizing Kyle but not the criminal who chased him with a gun?