Another gunman charged in Kyle Ritterhouse investigation.

Kyle did what any of us here would have done that still wears a set of balls.Wanted to get out of dodge when he knew he would get killed and shot when he was down and out. I remember no video of him in the off hand firing stance emptying a 30 round mag. into a crowd. But just him on the ground firing while being attacked.

I guess the guys in Benghazi who helped the other guys get out alive. Had the same issues.
we wait doing nothing no help. So i guess we defend and shoot and try and get out.

And those rpg ak-47 warriors happened to be there also just to burn a few building down there,

I guess it is all a matter of what spot you are in. In Kenosha a burning city ravaged by terrorists. Or a Benghazi compound surrounded by same. Just trying to help somebody out.

I would rather have that kid watching my back in battle.

way more Then some of the arse clowns that post how bad and wrong he was.
but as i started the same bunch that would run from a real fight anyhow.

 

Would you let your son enlist in the Armed Forces or a police department, and then voluntarily go to an area where fighting was likely to occur, if he wanted to serve his country or protect innocent people from bad guys? If not, why not?

 

The Kenosha DA is known to over charge and so he loses more cases than normal.

In Kyle's case he was charged with Murder 1 without reviewing security video, interviewing witnesses and seeking the motive.

He will be found Not guilty or hung jury. If Trump is President the DOJ will not refer federal charges.

 

So what inverted, upside down, backwards ****ing universe do you live in where the "rule of law" states that shooting someone in self defense means you automatically go to prison?

You are either a democrat that's hacked off that someone had the balls to stand up to Antifa, or you're a paid shill. Which is it?

 

You are new to the forum. Quite a few people are normal - they shoot from the lip.

 

Not even a legitimate comparison IMO. Actually kind of disgusts me that someone would compare going to a riot with the sacrifices of military or LE service.

I was 17 when I went through basic training. Both my sons were in the military and one is a LEO.

 

You shouldn't tell other people how to post.

Good for you!

 

Just trying to help a newbie out

 

Good for you!!!

 

It was a yes or no question in case you missed that.

 

I think his is a case of bad judgement [(a) being in the riot area (b) with a rifle] that resulted in having to shoot in self defense. I don’t believe he went there with the intent to shoot someone, and that should weigh heavily in his favor.

I hope he will go free, but the prosecutor will try to imprison him. He’ll spend a few years locked up during appeals, but a reasonable judge will ultimately realize his offense was stupidity and cut him loose with time served.

That’s how it looks to me.

 

Um, no. As much as it might pain you, the boy gets a trial.

 

Actually, it looks like he handled that gun just fine....

 

What fun is that. But.

YES, I would let them enlist in the U.S. Military at 17.

To bad Kyle will probably never get to enlist in anything, but maybe they’ll do a made for TV movie.

 

You may be right.

From the information we know, I actually think he will and should go free sooner than that. He will probably catch a few lesser charges. I know in Wisconsin you can hunt alone with a firearm at 14 with hunters safety, but this is a different deal.

 

Thanks. I think my analogy isn't too far-fetched. Perhaps Kyle told his dad "I'm worried about the safety of the innocent business owners in that area, and I want to do something to help them--maybe give 1st Aid to any who end up hurt, maybe even help protect the owners from the armed, violent thugs who will probably be there threatening people and property."

And his dad said "You realize it might be dangerous, right? If you went there, I would worry about your safety. But I support your desire to serve and protect the innocent, so I won't forbid it. Just be careful and defend yourself if you need to."

How is that NOT similar to a dad allowing his son to serve in the combat infantry, knowing that there's a decent chance he will be sent into harm's way? And how much should we question the judgment of either dad in either of those situations?

 

Completely different. IMO.

Being in a legitimate military organization. being trained, mentored and supervised by the senior ranks. Not to mention the legitimate legal authority. Plus even if you go in at 17 there is training time and you will generally be an adult before seeing combat.

 

I think that in both cases, the son's desire to help others, and the dad's decision to not forbid him, are legit. I'd kind of be proud of my son, even if he was just a civilian, for being concerned AND brave enough to do what Kyle intended to do when he went out that night. Maybe I'm a bad father?

 

The young man is a high school drop out and was being raised by his single mother.

I want to believe IF his father was actively involved in his life, the kid would not be a high school drop out and likely would not have attended this riot.

https://www.boston.com/news/national-news-2/2020/08/27/who-is-kyle-rittenhouse

 

It was a hypothetical, so if he doesn't have a dad in his life, that's okay. His mom could just as easily be the supportive parent, whose judgment I will not question. And I still can't bring myself to criticize Kyle's motives. In a way, he showed, as a civilian, rare courage, since he hadn't been though boot camp, hadn't been trained by the best instructors, didn't have state-of-the-art body armor, and didn't have a platoon of equally trained and armed fellow soldiers to have his back. Yet he saw a need to render aid, and he had the balls to volunteer it.

A coward he is not.