We Never Know
No Slack
Was he there to "side with the police" or was he there trying to "act like the police" since he had been doing ride alongs with the police?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Kyle Rittenhouse trial:
- Thread starter Subduction Zone
- Start date
Was he there to "side with the police" or was he there trying to "act like the police" since he had been doing ride alongs with the police?
Suave
Simulated character
According to screenshots shared by The Verge, a militia group called “Kenosha Guard” hosted a Facebook event called “Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property,” while the group’s page invited “patriots willing to take up arms and defend our city tonight from the evil thugs.”
Facebook takes down militia group that organized armed response to protests | Engadget
Suave
Simulated character
I'm guessing Kyle Rittenhouse belonged to the militia, or acted at the request of the Kenosha Guard Militia to be there serving to protect property.
We Never Know
No Slack
Still yet they appointed themselves to be those people.
We Never Know
No Slack
He knows. I don't.
Suave
Simulated character
They might have been deputized by the Kenosha Police who seemingly knew Kyle Rittenhouse and treated him very well.
Kenosha police 'deputized' militia ahead of deadly shooting, lawsuit claims
We Never Know
No Slack
If he was deputized they would have/should have spoken up before now.
But then again that would be admitting he was militia.
Suave
Simulated character
With a pending civil lawsuit against them, mum's the word. Right?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? Why do you think that they were there? They may have been very right wing, but that does not mean that their motivations were bad.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would not mind criticizing the right wing groups if one could be unbiased enough to admit that the other group were not protesters. The protesters had all gone home by that time, at least for the most part. What was left were rioters.
Violent protesters? lol
I have seen so peaceful protests about BLM.
I know. Those were not protesters.
As for the Floyd case I criticized all those who minimized Floyd's death.
I am a person who has to see the evidence first.
I watched the footage and I immediately said : " Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter".
I wonder whether everyone has actually seen the 2 footages as for Rittenhouse case.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
If you live in the world presented by news media,
you will indeed be fearful that death is just around
the corner. But I & many many others go about
our day without conflict. RF provides the most
hostility I ever see. Real life is much friendlier.
BTW, I avoid churches like the plague, but not
because of any danger.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Arson is.violent. Destruction of property is violent. Violence is not limited to attacking other people.
Judging by the rhetoric coming out of the vigilante groups on social media in the days leading up to the shooting, it seems that many of them were looking for a chance to kill without legal consequences.
In many of your pas posts, that's been your
automatic presumption about all of us who carry.
Knowing that broad brush prejudice is false, I'm
not inclined to trust your judgment in such matters.
However, such angry & overly aggressive individuals
do exist. I even know one Canuckistanian that way.
With an open mind, judge people as individuals.
Last edited:
BTW - why do you think they were there? The line they gave about "defending property" doesn't hold water, so whatever their reasons, they aren't being open about them.
I mean, if we go by @Suave 's take, they were there to "defend" whatever car inventory was left undamaged from the fire the night before... but that inventory would have almost certainly been insured, so they wouldn't have been protecting the business owner against financial loss. I mean, even any deductible would have been a moot point after the fire the night before.
And the property wasn't irreplaceable artwork or anything; it was used cars. Their only value was in their financial value.
So why do you think they were there?
I can think of a number of hypotheses that fit the facts, none of which reflect well on the vigilantes. Can you think of any plausible hypotheses for why they might have been there where they come off positively?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Possibly. I would not know since I do not pay too much attention to them.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am not so sure about that. I do not know how much of value was left there. It appears that they might not have gotten everything that first night. And please, don't give me that "it's insured" line. There are still deductibles and other losses and we all end up in paying for it with higher premiums. That is an extremely irresponsible attitude to have.
Can you at least admit that one cannot claim them to be protesters when they turn violent? At that point they are rioters. And yes, doing malicious harm to property is by definition violence. Violence is not limited to actions against people.
When you say "only financial value" you should remember the adage "time is money". They are effectively stealing the lifetime of others. Take the average wages earned by a person over a year and you can translate the money lost into how much of a person's life is lost in replacing it.
But worst of all this is all a huge red herring of those that are out looking for revenge rather than for justice. If you followed this thread I do think that Rittenhouse does deserve some prison time. But like it or not he is not guilty of murder. His reasons for being there matter no more than the sex crimes of Rosenbaum would in justifying his being shot. When it comes to deciding if it was murder or self defense one only needs to ask if Rittenhouse had a reasonable fear that his life was in danger. It is rather clear that he did.
By the way, who fired the first shot?