You asked the question, I am just giving you the answer. Don't shoot the messenger. It was lawful for him to have the rifle and it was lawful for him to use it in self-defense.
Replies
I'm not down for shooting anyone. That's why I don't think anyone should have guns and that vigilantism is also a bloody stupid idea. Furthermore, something being lawful doesn't make it morally acceptable and I can't see how this was at all.
aug 29, 2025, 4:00 pm • 1 0 • view
I'm not down for shooting anyone either, but if some hostile lunatic threatened to kill me and then tried to grab my rifle, it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to believe that he might mean it if he gets the gun. Fair?
aug 29, 2025, 4:52 pm • 1 0 • view
Top tip - don't be a vigilante, brandishing a firearm in public trying to do a job you aren't trained to do and aren't responsible for and that will never happen.
aug 29, 2025, 5:09 pm • 2 0 • view
It is a shame that you had to deflect also, instead of debating in good faith and answering the question I put to you.
aug 29, 2025, 5:35 pm • 1 0 • view
Which question, sorry? I am debating in good faith - I just happen to completely disagree with you. I think the weapons culture in the US is completely sick and it boggles my mind that the US can watch thousands of children kill and be killed and do nothing about it.
aug 29, 2025, 6:13 pm • 1 0 • view
It's okay. I asked whether a violent individual who had threatened to kill a person and was trying to grab that person's gun would give that person a reasonable belief that the threat was serious. I think it does, regardless of wider opinion on gun culture.
aug 29, 2025, 6:18 pm • 1 0 • view
No gun and not there - no problem.
aug 29, 2025, 6:22 pm • 1 0 • view
With respect, that still doesn't answer the question. I get why it is tricky to answer. One can make arguments all day about whether he should have been there, but the fact is, he was, and he was jumped by Rosenbaum, which kicked the whole thing off.
aug 29, 2025, 6:24 pm • 1 0 • view
Which question, be specific.
aug 29, 2025, 6:29 pm • 1 0 • view
aug 29, 2025, 6:31 pm • 2 0 • view
Also, brandishing is an unlawful act. It typically describes the act of unlawfully displaying a weapon in whole or in part with the intent to threaten or intimidate another person. That is distinct from mere open carry of firearms, which is quite lawful in Wisconsin.
aug 29, 2025, 5:34 pm • 1 0 • view
Again, I feel like that is exactly what he was doing. The mere presence of an openly carried firearm is essentially a threat to anyone who sees it, in my opinion.
aug 29, 2025, 6:10 pm • 0 0 • view
It depends on context. Had he been the only person there who showed up with an AR-15, then sure, it might cause alarm. But there were so many openly armed people in Kenosha over the three nights of unrest, many carrying similar rifles, that any suggestion he was conspicuous doesn't hold water.
aug 29, 2025, 6:21 pm • 1 0 • view
And most of them managed not to kill anyone. Probably why a 17 year old kid who doesn't know his arse from his elbow shouldn't be out there on his own with a military grade rifle.
aug 29, 2025, 6:24 pm • 0 0 • view
None of the others were ambushed whilst alone by the idiot who had threatened to kill him if he caught him alone, and who grabbed for his rifle. I would bet my house that had Rosenbaum done that to any of the other armed individuals, his fate would have been the same.
aug 29, 2025, 6:26 pm • 1 0 • view
"The mere presence of an openly carried firearm is essentially a threat" Context matters. WI is an open carry state & Kyle was amongst 100's of people who were similarly armed. He was no more conspicuous than everyone else.
aug 29, 2025, 6:25 pm • 0 0 • view
Open carry is beyond ridiculous. Just a recipe for disaster and escalation and why he ended up killing two people.
aug 29, 2025, 6:28 pm • 0 0 • view
Those guys could have always just not attacked him.
aug 29, 2025, 6:33 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes, they shouldn't have done. A lot of things that happened, should not have. But they're dead now and Rittenhouse is a far right posterboy capitalising on the fact that he got away with murder.
aug 29, 2025, 6:36 pm • 0 0 • view
At least you concede that they should not have attacked him. That was the entire foundation of his claim of self-defense being accepted, and the jury determining that he did not commit the crime of murder.
aug 29, 2025, 6:39 pm • 1 0 • view
Lawful self defense isn't murder.
aug 29, 2025, 6:41 pm • 0 0 • view
That doesn't invalidate my previous post. Why are you relieving Rosenbaum of any & all culpability? When Rosenbaum attacked Kyle, he was running to extinguish a car fire. A fact that ADA Binger acknowledged. How are you justifying the unprovoked attack on Kyle by Rosenbaum?
aug 29, 2025, 6:31 pm • 0 0 • view
He was never a vigilante. A vigilante is a person who assumes the role of law enforcement without proper authority. He was never witnessed trying to enforce the law. He was trying to guard private property, and was also witnessed administering some basic medical aid.
aug 29, 2025, 5:32 pm • 1 0 • view
Sounds exactly like what Rittenhouse was doing to me. Should never have been there.
aug 29, 2025, 6:09 pm • 0 0 • view
Well he was never witnessed trying to arrest or detain anybody, give lawful orders or hand out any penalties. Acting as private security, of any kind, is not vigilantism.
aug 29, 2025, 6:14 pm • 1 0 • view
I'd disagree in that vigilantes don't tend to do that but rather take the law into their own hands. He was not hired as a security guard. Was he trained, licensed and old enough to be one legally?
aug 29, 2025, 6:19 pm • 0 0 • view
Despite your personal beliefs, Kyle had every right to be there, armed, just like everyone else.
aug 29, 2025, 6:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Doesn't make it right, moral or the people he killed who otherwise would still be alive, any less dead.
aug 29, 2025, 6:21 pm • 0 0 • view
Rittenhouse didn't carry out an unprovoked attack on someone who was clearly armed. His attackers did. Perhaps they shouldn't have been there.
aug 29, 2025, 6:24 pm • 0 0 • view
No idea why you want this wild west society where it's fine to shoot someone due to your predetermined set of parameters. To the rest of the world it seems absolutely deranged.
aug 29, 2025, 6:25 pm • 0 0 • view
The parameters are the circumstances and the law. The circumstances were that three individuals attacked Rittenhouse to the point where his belief the force he used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable. Which is what the law requires.
aug 29, 2025, 6:37 pm • 1 0 • view
Why are you relieving Rosenbaum of any & all culpability? When Rosenbaum attacked Kyle, he was running to extinguish a car fire. A fact that ADA Binger acknowledged. How are you justifying the unprovoked attack on Kyle by Rosenbaum?
aug 29, 2025, 6:26 pm • 0 0 • view
Hopak Shakur blocked me. I think the larger lesson here is people like him still think the riots in Kenosha was justified mob violence because they were told or led to believe that Jacob Blake was an unarmed young Black man unjustly shot by Kenosha Police. Therefore, any resistance to that is bad.
aug 29, 2025, 3:05 pm • 1 0 • view