Witnesses come out to say Kyle Rittenhouse pointed his gun at them

If a group was burning my city and screaming for the death of my fellow citizens, there is a good chance I would point a gun at them to.

Check the active ATS thread about the Tactical and Legal analysis of the incident. I'm sure you'll see a more truthful narrative

originally posted by: Nickn3
If a group was burning my city and screaming for the death of my fellow citizens, there is a good chance I would point a gun at them to.

I would 100000000000% support you defending YOUR home, YOUR city, YOUR business.

Not some vigilante from another town, another STATE!

Also if it is true a business hired him, WHY is a business hiring children to defend them?

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: JAGStorm

So the physical evidence-lacking word of members of a crowd whose entire narrative is based on lies and bull# are good enough for you?

Well, that speaks volumes on how these fools managed to goad and fool so many otherwise intelligent Americans into buying and supporting their BS cause.

OHHHHHHHHH so self defense is OK for one side but not the other...?
How quickly the narrative changes...

I'd like you to remember this post for future reference.

It's my opinion that the kid was wrong for carrying a firearm into that situation. Nothing good could have come from it. It was a mistake. The first shooting, he shot someone. I wasn't there, and it's not my place to assign guilt, that is for a jury to decide.

But, and here is where your post comes into play.
After the initial shooting, he was running away. Why? Because an angry mob was after him. he was tackled, the guy who tackled him had a gun. He shot both of them IN SELF DEFENSE. His life was in danger, and unless you are OK with vigilante justice some of the time, you will have to admit this particular case goes both ways, and the only real argument is limited to the first shooting.

What is your opinion on that?

a reply to: JAGStorm


i also find this funny,

from the bottom of the link in your OP.

Reporters also reviewed videos, websites, social media accounts, news releases, court records and numerous media reports.

so if there is video, social media accounts, surly somebody has has rittenhouse on video pointing his weapon at them or others, and on their social media accounts. people just love to post that kinda stuff, want to be first and the best footage, even if it's just some blurry image captured from a video.

then the fact that the source article came from a newspaper owned by USA Today a left wing fish wrapping rag

pitiful just pitiful

originally posted by: JAGStorm
Also if it is true a business hired him, WHY is a business hiring children to defend them?

Because the "adults" running their city and state are acting like cowardly children in the face of other "adults" who are throwing childish tantrums. When the adults fail to act maturely, mature children can and often are the most mature, responsible party available.

ETA: Also US law permits 17 year olds to enlist in the armed services. Again, let's not get so hyperbolic and hysterical that we try to argue a 17 year old is a "child."

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Nickn3
If a group was burning my city and screaming for the death of my fellow citizens, there is a good chance I would point a gun at them to.

I would 100000000000% support you defending YOUR home, YOUR city, YOUR business.

Not some vigilante from another town, another STATE!

Also if it is true a business hired him, WHY is a business hiring children to defend them?

Yes, god forbid people get into a group to help each other

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Nickn3
If a group was burning my city and screaming for the death of my fellow citizens, there is a good chance I would point a gun at them to.

I would 100000000000% support you defending YOUR home, YOUR city, YOUR business.

Not some vigilante from another town, another STATE!

Also if it is true a business hired him, WHY is a business hiring children to defend them?

Well rioters and looters are coming from out of town too, so why not people to protect civilisation against the mob?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Because the "adults" running their city and state are acting like cowardly children in the face of other "adults" who are throwing childish tantrums. When the adults fail to act maturely,

lets just call it what it is, Pandering to the thugs.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Nickn3
If a group was burning my city and screaming for the death of my fellow citizens, there is a good chance I would point a gun at them to.

I would 100000000000% support you defending YOUR home, YOUR city, YOUR business.

Not some vigilante from another town, another STATE!

Also if it is true a business hired him, WHY is a business hiring children to defend them?

Well rioters and looters are coming from out of town too, so why not people to protect civilisation against the mob?

Great point!

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: UKTruth


Show some proof in stead of sob story propaganda.

As it stands the video evidence clearly shows self-defence.

As mentioned above:

It also comes from firsthand observations of reporters who covered the protests

Then link the video of the incident where he pointed the gun at people. Then we can see if it really happened AND the context. If some douchebag BLM or Antifa thug was trying to vandalise or loot the store he was protecting then pointing a gun to warn them off would seem reasonable and has NO bearing on the incident in question where he was CLEARLY defending himself from assualt and potential death.

Stop with your BS and start with some actual evidence beyond a #ty Yahoo news article.

Just do a lot better than spreading this sh*t, which is designed solely to try this man in the court of public opinion and shred due process.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

ETA: Also US law permits 17 year olds to enlist in the armed services. Again, let's not get so hyperbolic and hysterical that we try to argue a 17 year old is a "child."

This is an entirely different discussion. Remember we aren't talking about armed services, we're talking Kyle Rittenhouse, age 17 in Wisconsin, where it is illegal for him to carry that gun.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: JAGStorm

So the physical evidence-lacking word of members of a crowd whose entire narrative is based on lies and bull# are good enough for you?

Well, that speaks volumes on how these fools managed to goad and fool so many otherwise intelligent Americans into buying and supporting their BS cause.

OHHHHHHHHH so self defense is OK for one side but not the other...?
How quickly the narrative changes...

Here in the United States of America , one must PROVE self defense in a court of law .

a reply to: JAGStorm

I will not defend the kid as he should not have been there and the weapon should not have been there. If skateboard kid had swung his skateboard at the moment the weapon was pointed at him, then I would say yes he was defending himself. A bit stupid to bring a skateboard to a gunfight however.

The video I have seen seems to show the gunman on the ground not confronting anyone and skateboard kid running towards the gunman, not brandishing his skateboard but actually using it as a weapon striking the gunman in the head before it appears he is shot. Again confronting a gunman with a skateboard is stupid, actually assaulting a gunman with a skateboard is even dumber.

The second incident is rather clearer, another individual who has already admitted his intent was to kill the gunman runs quickly runs toward the gunman while he is on the ground, again not the brightest move, he is seen drawing out a weapon which appears to be a handgun, it appears he fumbles a bit, a hesitation he admits he regrets and this is when he is shot after which the weapon in his hand appears to fall to the ground.

Both incidents could have been avoided by all parties involved. It does appear that the kid was defending himself against being bashed silly by a skateboard wielding assailant and then defending himself against someone who clearly had the means to harm or kill him, admitted on social media after these events of his intent to kill the young man but instead lost much of his arm and is extremely lucky that he was able to brag on his earlier intent and not in the morgue and just another statistic.

I might also point out the individual who unfortunately was shot in the arm appeared to produce his weapon from a pocket, which would be considered a concealed weapon. Does he have a CWP ? Under other circumstances he could and may still find himself under scrutiny for that weapons violation. The shooter was clearly an open carrier, and despite his age of 17 may be legal since he did not purchase the weapon himself but was loaned the weapon in the state of Wisconsin by a friend which is allowed by Wisconsin law but the circumstances covered are defined as hunting, target practice, educational purposes, so will be argued.

This friend is some one who will be facing charges in his near future and could be the murder charges currently faced by the young gunman. As stated each incident was clearly avoidable by each party, self defense appears to be a valid defense in the case but will we see actual charges of murder brought to a Judge or Jury ? The law clearly states that the loaner assumes liability for accidental discharges injuring the underage person or another or intentional discharge as seems to be in this case.

Could also be problematic for the prosecution to argue the underage law yet charging the young man as an adult. They will most likely not argue the underage aspect and just go after him as an adult with either murder or manslaughter charges. I am not a lawyer but it could be argued do not likely a charge brought. It’s not as cut and dry as you seem to feel. It is also clear that this young man is not a stranger to weapons, has received proper weapons handeling training as you will see in the video.

I for one would consider the Judge or Jury question carefully as the case is emotionally charged and while juries are to determine guilt or innocence based on evidence, sometimes emotions rule instead, Judges can avoid the emotions sometimes but can rule under stricter interpretation of law. I believe there will be lesser charges brought to any trial, but a not guilty verdict if murder charges are argued.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie


Kyle looks bad all on all on his own. He doesn't need help.

Here's a video of this thug beating on a young woman.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: mtnshredder

Witnesses come out to say Kyle Rittenhouse pointed his gun at them

Sure they did🙄. Any pics or vid?

From the report:

Information contained in this story comes from interviews with eight protesters who attended demonstrations in Kenosha. It also comes from firsthand observations of reporters who covered the protests and news conferences regarding the shooting of Jacob Blake by police and the shootings of three men on Tuesday night. Reporters also reviewed videos, websites, social media accounts, news releases, court records and numerous media reports.

I've seen several videos, there are probably more. The truth will come out.

I’ve seen vids too but none where’s he’s pointing the gun at anyone until the actual shooting incident. Have you seen one where he was? Not saying he didn’t, just saying.

You do realize most of the people that were there were probably rioters/protesters that will say anything to see this guy hang. As far as press, IDK, I guess we wait and see what comes out and from whom.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: hounddoghowlie


Kyle looks bad all on all on his own. He doesn't need help.

Here's a video of this thug beating on a young woman.

Which one is Kyle Rittenhouse?

I understand the concern. When Kyle gets off scot free, then every looter and rioter hiding amongst legitimate protesters will be fair game. Which means protesters will of course be caught in the crossfire.

But here is an idea...don’t glorify actual criminals into martyrdom and expect people to support your cause. And for Pete’s sake, divest your cause from the violent element instead of enabling it.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
So for all you "self defense, self defense, self defense" people,
if it is indeed proven Kyle was pointing his gun at people,
weren't they simply self defending?

The videos speak louder than words and it sure looked like Kyle was not pointing his gun and was trying to get away the whole time, that is the video, so I don't know what to say, but the yahoo story sure reads like a story.