Rosenbaum is a child molesting disgusting human being.

But he would have lived if people were not allowed to LARP with real guns.

Aside from the obvious arguments against vigilantism, it seems several people ITT can't (or don't want to) logic. There is a difference between "Rittenhouse killed [someone for being] a pedo" and "Rittenhouse killed someone who, unbeknownst to him, happened to be a pedo".

Is there anything he could have done differently that would have allowed him to live?

Is the bigger issue here that police for whatever reasons have chosen to allow the vigilantes in to what is an active crime zone?

Am I wrong in thinking in the past and now police can and should find reasons to keep these types of hostile parties apart and they have the tools to do so, if they want to?

it seems to me that police could very easily state this area is 'an active crime zone. We will be entering to collect evidence and to pursue charges and thus we cannot have you guys (vigilantes) enter the zone' and then catch, process and release any vigilante who enters to send a signal to others it will not be tolerated.


I understand many will reply to this 'hullo the police want them to enter and even steer them into each other to promote clashes' which is valid but has nothing to do with my question. My question is more around if the tools exist to prevent this type of thing in law or does Congress need to consider new laws.

IMO no society should tolerate vigilante response to situations police refuse to engage in. If you have a bunch of bank robbers hold up in a bank with hostages and the police choose to not just march in and engage guns a blasting, local vigilantes should not be able to show up and make the decision they will do what the cops are refusing to do. There should be a way to stop them.

Your argument is the vigilante argument.

You don't want the vigilante to act as judge, jury and executioner then don't do any crimes.

Do you agree with that assessment? Think it is fair?

Do you think society is failing if we move towards vigilante justice in the streets as defacto policing while the stand by?

I am more curious about where people's head are at then I am condemning of this thought. I won't deny vigilante justice has a very base appeal to me in certain situations but I am not at a place where i would want to see my fantasy thoughts become law. The question is more of are we at a place where you support enabling it?

I agree with you. Still, what is the difference between this and people thinking "I want Rittenhouse to go to prison for life because he happens to be a right winger?"

I disagree with those people too, fwiw. As for my personal views, I don't think he deserves life, but he definitely deserves a chunk (maybe somewhere between 10 and 15 non mandatory) on whatever charges get him to that number, and that has nothing to do with him being a right winger. But, as Rococo puts it, the law does not have very good machinery for dealing with people who go looking for trouble and find it.

He'll be fine in prison anyway, the AB will make sure of that.

And in this forum, which i would generally say slants enormously left, I think you can see almost all of the people think Rittenhouse should walk, even if some (like myself) have issues with a system that allow for his vigilante actions.

I am quite confident to say if this topic was discussed in the BFI, you would see very little if any such objectivity. Rittenhouse would be a hero rightly clearing out the degenerate masses.

I don't think he should walk. There is an abyss between walking and letters.

Ya i should have been clear as I meant on all the murder based charges.

I am not convinced they will get him on any charges but I think he deserves to be found guilty on many of the related offenses. I do not think, and do not think many here think that he is guilty of the murder related charges.

afaict, people want Rittenhouse to go to prison because he's a dangerous assclown. The fact that he parties with Proud Boys is incidental.

Was Rittenhouse Posession of Rifle Unlawful

And from what I've seen, it's the complete opposite.

The bigger issue is that police allowed there to be an active crime zone in the first place. Of course it's not the police's fault because when they reached the governor's building, it had cops surrounding the building arm-to-arm (though that could be MI I'm thinking of).

You're saying police should allow people to burn buildings etc., but a business owner who wants to protect his or her business should not be tolerated for doing so? (Yes, I know none involved in this case owned the business or were hired to protect the business).


No society should have situations the police refuse to engage in stopping crime. Politicians letting cities burn to the ground as some form of, "These people are upset over police brutality, so let's just let them torch the city to get it out of their system, but if they reach my office or house then I want you to engage otherwise **** everyone else who pays taxes that include basic police protections" is preposterous.

This makes me sound like a right-winger (it shouldn't) and I am not, but allowing complete anarchy is not the answer. They also hit residential areas. Are you going to consider a home owner a vigilante if he protects his family because police refuse to?

Don't get me wrong; they shouldn't have been there either and Rittenhouse is a dumb kid who thought running around with a gun would make him look like a badass and instead he got put to the test, but the implication that they're the actual problem instead of police not policing is one I don't agree with.

+1

I understand the “Both sides are bad, I’m above it all” mentality is appealing to some people.

Lets go thru this.


I think we both agree that the Constitutional right to Protests and Marches and Civil Disobedience is one we all want to preserve correct?

By that I mean if a bunch of Trump supporters want to march on the Capital to register their disdain and they block some traffic and roads illegally as they go, that is within the confines of what the Constitution should and does support.

I think we both also agree that any extreme lawlessness that takes place around the fringes of such lawful protests should be actionable in the form of arrests by the police. The police should have the right to move and arrest those committing crimes.

If you agree with that then we both are on the same page as to what the police should action during any Protest.


Separate to that now is my post on vigilantes showing up to police what the police refuse to that you and I agree they should police.

Based on that I again offer my post that police should not allow vigilantes in to such a scene.

What reason can you give that they should or that is not wrong for them to do so?

He is a dangerous assclown! In fact there were a few dangerous assclowns with
combat rifles made for wars in that demo! wtf?? how the f is that possible? How the f is that legal? whats wrong with you people? You know what happens when you bring a war weapon to a demo? people die, its that simple, tempers boil over, its a sure bet.

I just watched this guy telling he thinks he will get off on self defense! Jahahahhaaaa!!
Thats like saying the vegas shooter killed in self defense. He cannot bring a weapon and then when he gets into an argument use it. Thats bs.




Why the f does police had to shoot him, wtf is wrong with America?



Survived medic testimonial, Jaaahahahaaa even the medics carried guns. He pointed the gun at rittenhouses head

So you guys in the US like to play hide and seek with real guns and dangerous assclowns. Thats just perfect.

Why would anyone run and chase a guy with a AR-15? I dont get it.

Here is a tape showing how rosenkrantz chased him and getting shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfrUopNUSIk

For the "Rittenhouse is a hero" folk, how do you reconcile this ...

"...Two weeks before he shot three people in Kenosha, killing two, Kyle Rittenhouse was captured on video threatening to shoot men he believed were shoplifting at a pharmacy, according to prosecutors.

...Rittenhouse is on the side of a street, watching several people leaving a CVS Pharmacy. “Bro, I wish I had my (expletive) AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them,” Rittenhouse says..." cite


I am not asking if you think it should be admissible in court. What I am asking is do you agree that this establishes that at a minimum Rittenhouse fantasized about being in places where he could engage with people committing crimes and get in to conflicts where he could shoot them?

Point of clarification. There are no combat rifles in that demo

AT . I wanted to correct it but then was too lazy.

U gotta be kidding me! There is a church for the AR-15?



Guns For God: The Church of the AR-15

The military version is the M-16.

Dude, you probably post more youtube clips than every single other poster in this forum combined.

I don't even watch TV, I literally watch only youtube, and I prob post 1/50th of the clips you do.

People generally come to a text based forum to have a text based discussion. A clip can be a useful tool to that end, for sure, but you take it too far IMO.