Kyle Rittenhouse sobbing shows what's wrong with America

Vigilantism! How can you not see it?

 

It was well proven and proven self defense. He was attempting to retreat from harms way and was attacked by two people who were armed and one who attempted to take his rifle..

 

That's kind of a stretch but that's what you get when the police stand down and won't do their damn job

 

Do you really think this is the only self defense case that involves a gun?

 

Because they live in inferior nations.

 

I bet they won't do that again!

 

Vigilante - any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

Protecting property is not against the law. Helping the injured is not against the law. Protecting yourself from bodily harm is not against the law, well, at least in this country.

 

Tell that to cops. Or those in the military.

 

Even vigilanties have the right to defend themselves.

A vigilante typically tries to take the law into their own hands by punishing those they deem guilty. Not the same as protecting oneself when attacked.

You see someone you BELIEVE is a criminal and attack them you are acting as a vigilante. They attack you they ARE a criminal and you have the right to defend yourself

 

i do not know the laws in his state. possession by felon laws, by patriots, are generally ignored in louisiana.

i don't think any of the victims belonged in that neighborhood nor did they have anything to do with "black lives matter."

one even had the same "first aid and help" story as rittenhouse.

 

Did they kill someone?

 

Nope.

 

cops and military have duties, follow orders, are disciplined. armed interlopers not so much.

 

I don't know the laws there either but it only seems rational and logical that if you've been convicted of improper use of a firearm that you will be stripped of your rights assuming this is the case I wonder why he is facing no charges?

 

Given the context of what Pant's asked your question is irrelevant to what I asked/stated.

 

There is an important bipartisan moral of the story here.... If you go looking for trouble the chances are you will find it.

 

you see someone you believe is a criminal and attack them, they have the right to defend themselves, stand their ground, use deadly force etc.

 

Neither are violent rioters.

 

Why would you think the rioters perceived Rittenhouse to be a criminal?

 

Like Kyle.

 

Buuuut DEFUND THE POLICE...

 

And they still have a right to claim self defense even though they put themselves in harms way. The point is that just because you put yourself in a situation that could be harmful it does not negate your ability to claim self defense. The only time self defense is not able to be claimed is if you seek out and cause trouble. None of which Kyle did. Going to protect a building is not seeking out and causing trouble. Going to put out a fire is not seeking out and causing trouble.

 

That is correct. Which is why have a court system to decide who is a criminal and who is not. Belief is not a valid reason

 

Yep no right to be armed or free speech, growing tyranny in governnment.
Woefully inferior nations

 

Uh yes they do.