The most famous use of an AR15 for Self-Defense

Corpral_Agarn said:

I agree.

I think the problem is what citizens are supposed to do when the LEO and military have stopped doing their jobs and people who are not from your town are burning it down.

Of police and national guard had stopped all that, there would not have been people stepping up and filling those roles.

.gov had abandoned the people of Kenosha.

Click to expand...

I've got some theories as to why the government did what they did. And I honestly believe that at its core is th concept of life being more valuable than property. It may have been a misguided decision, but I think the intentions were good.

That aside, if you go (travel) to a protest that you believe will turn violent, you know you are choosing to accept the possibility of violence. It doesn't matter what side you're on, you're choosing put your life in danger over something that is less valuable. Pretty stupid in my opinion.

WrongHanded said:

I've got some theories as to why the government did what they did. And I honestly believe that at its core is th concept of life being more valuable than property. It may have been a misguided decision, but I think the intentions were good.

Click to expand...

By and large, such governments have ignored violent crimes by their allies as well, up to and including murder.

It's pretty obvious that domestic terrorists advocating a genocidal, totalitarian form of government were allowed to run amuck because the people charged with preventing that didn't WANT to.

Corpral_Agarn said:

I agree.

I think the problem is what citizens are supposed to do when the LEO and military have stopped doing their jobs and people who are not from your town are burning it down.

Of police and national guard had stopped all that, there would not have been people stepping up and filling those roles.

.gov had abandoned the people of Kenosha.

Click to expand...

According to the prosecution in the Rittenhouse case, you're supposed "take that beating".

Carl N. Brown said:

Media retractions are never as prominent as the original false accusation.
The headline story on page 1 will get notice; the retraction in small type down in the corner of page 2 will be found only by someone searching for it.

Click to expand...

And besides, they won't save them from the brutal libel and defamation suits.

DustyGmt said:

I just assume any time someone is charged with murder that prosecutors will comb through you life to make you look bad. All the prosecutor managed to do was make himself look bad though.....

Click to expand...

There is that case in Texas pending right now where a US Army Sgt. shot and killed an peaceful Antifa protestor who pointed an AK-47 in his face or muzzled him and he drew his weapon and shot and killed him.

U.S. Army sergeant who shot Austin protester Garrett Foster posted tweets about retaliating against demonstrators

Click to expand...

It is all so very troubling, the police are being turned against the citizens, the citizens against the police, neighbor against neighbor, abhorrent gun behavior is glamorized in the media on TV and in movies, on social media. All covert signs that societal collapse is being orchestrated covertly behind the scenes. The only go to people the public has relied upon has been the military and the police and they are largely enjoying the increase in federal funding and the increase in power politics domination and police powers over the deluded and confused, and increasingly enraged populace. Look to Europe and the riots, and fires, citizens fighting the police and destroying property rising to the level to require military intervention.. and with our current form of government no strong hand leader can emerge that represent to populace. It is all contrived.

Huge loss here for them with the Rittenhouse trial because in reflection that kid did everything lawful within the law, and exactly right, right down to basic weapons safety and handling while Daniel Perry will more than likely be convicted. Hopefully not, once the jury hears the evidence, but in lieu of outside video of which there doesn't appear to be much. His future appears bleak at his upcoming political trial.

Stop the train I want to get off

Deanimator said:

.... because the people charged with preventing that didn't WANT to.

Click to expand...

This is the only part of what you wrote that I find relevant.

It's foolish to have a Police Department enforce the law around protests that are directed towards the Police. It's just going to make things worse, and I understand why the government chose not to use the police to do the job.

However, I do believe that the National Guard should have been utilized to keep the peace. And part of the reason I believe it should have been the N.G. is because they are volunteer from the citizen body, who have pledged to protect the Country when called upon. And as such cannot be reasonably considered to be "part of the problem" the protesters believe exists.

But I also believe everyone who willfully violated curfews should have been detained by the N.G. and prosecuted for it. Of course, a lot of people would disagree with the very concept of a government ordered curfew, when it was opposing their agenda.

WrongHanded said:

It's foolish to have a Police Department enforce the law around protests that are directed towards the Police.

Click to expand...

It's foolish to call widespread arson, looting and assault "protests".

A protest is when people textually or verbally convey a message, such as "defund the police".

A RIOT is when people set fires, steal and attack innocent people.

Which one was happening in Kenosha that night?

Who tried to murder Kyle Rittenhouse that night, "protestors" or rioters?

I'm no fan of the police, but I'm certainly not going to give Black Lives Matter and Antifa a pass for their criminal activities, up to and and including murder.

Deanimator said:

It's foolish to call widespread arson, looting and assault "protests".

A protest is when people textually or verbally convey a message, such as "defund the police".

A RIOT is when people set fires, steal and attack innocent people.

Which one was happening in Kenosha that night?

Who tried to murder Kyle Rittenhouse that night, "protestors" or rioters?

I'm no fan of the police, but I'm certainly not going to give Black Lives Matter and Antifa a pass for their criminal activities, up to and and including murder.

Click to expand...

I think you missed all my points, didn't you.

Yes yes, what began as a protest became a bunch of illegal activities. Hence the curfew. I don't think anyone here is arguing anything different. I know I'm not.

WrongHanded said:

I think you missed all my points, didn't you.

Yes yes, what began as a protest became a bunch of illegal activities. Hence the curfew. I don't think anyone here is arguing anything different. I know I'm not.

Click to expand...

There was no need to suppress protests.

There was an urgent need to suppress RIOTS.

NEITHER was done. Hence a kid ended up there with a first aid kit and an AR, doing a job that somebody else was getting paid to do... and DIDN'T.

Deanimator said:

There was no need to suppress protests.

There was an urgent need to suppress RIOTS.

NEITHER was done. Hence a kid ended up there with a first aid kit and an AR, doing a job that somebody else was getting paid to do... and DIDN'T.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the kid and his friends chose to travel to a place where they believed there would be a riot, and protect someone's business, which meant apposing a mob. And the chose to be armed to do so. They also apparently chose to split up enough that one could be attacked and the others were unavailable to help. The outcome was a string of self defense encounters. But it was not unforeseeable.

I know you're angry that law enforcement was told to stand down. But I already address my belief as to why that was done. You can feel free to disagree with it all you like.

WrongHanded said:

Yeah, the kid and his friends chose to travel to a place where they believed there would be a riot, and protect someone's business, which meant apposing a mob. And the chose to be armed to do so. They also apparently chose to split up enough that one could be attacked and the others were unavailable to help. The outcome was a string of self defense encounters. But it was not unforeseeable.

I know you're angry that law enforcement was told to stand down. But I already address my belief as to why that was done. You can feel free to disagree with it all you like.

Click to expand...

The Rittenhouse situation was one of bad tactics as opposed to bad morals. NONE of them EVER should have been alone, much less alone in crowds of rioters. Whomever Rittenhouse was affiliated with let him down, BADLY.

When the government ignores or takes the side of the mob, countervailing centers of power will develop.

In 1919, White supremacists tried to burn down Chicago's Black community. The police took the side of the rioters and arsonists. My great uncles, just back from segregated service in France, stepped in with other members of the community, broke into their National Guard armories, armed themselves and fought back. If they hadn't, I might not be here to type this.

Likewise, when government gives wouldbe Spartacists a free hand, a Freikorps will INEVITABLY arise to oppose them.

I don't CARE why the government in Kenosha abdicated its duty to preserve public order and safety. It only matters that they DID. The police have no legal duty to protect individuals. They DO have a duty to preserve order. If they WON'T then there is no point to their existence. If the police sit around and do nothing while they WATCH looting, arson, assaults and murders happen, others will step in. The Rittenhouse trial was the Marxist left's reaction to that rejection of mob rule.

People aren't going to allow their communities to be burned to the ground and themselves victimized, regardless of local government's cowardice or sympathy for the perpetrators. I believe that one of the Kenosha prosecutors said words to the effect of "Sometimes you have to take that beating." In Kenosha, Antifa and its allies learned that when you try to dish out that beating, sometimes you have to take a bullet.

Excellent example, I just hope and pray that the unbridled violence we have seen in certain cities perpetrated by the mobs of unpeaceful protesters against innocent citizens, and the inaction of those who are paid to protect the lives of said citizens doesn't spread. Sorry for the run on sentence.

LocoGringo said:

I wish the pregnant woman in Florida who used an AR-15 to save her husband got more attention. That's another great example.

Click to expand...

True, and there are other cases as well.

As much as the OP wishes for this NOT to get political, the single reason Kyle's example is so well known is because the entire episode was PURELY political.

The riots were started in the first place... due to anti-police racist lies brought on to effect political change.
Kyle only had to defend himself, was because the police were told to hold back, and let the riots happen. (politics)
His being labeled a white supremist, and charged with crimes, were only more lies to further continued political change, including, and especially, gun control.

Gun control IS politics, so it's kinda hard NOT to get political.
One thing is for sure... the anti-gun crowd lost ground with this case.
Won't stop 'em, but it was definitely a "one step forward, two steps back" deal for them.

Space Ghost said:

Kyle only had to defend himself, was because the police were told to hold back, and let the riots happen. (politics)

Click to expand...

As this thread is about self defense, what's the first rule of self defense? I think it's something like "Don't knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation which is entirely avoidable."

I've got a lot of compassion for the kid and what he went through, and is continuing to go through. But let's be honest, he's still being used as a political tool. For the Left, he is the murderous villain who escaped justice due to his white privilege. For the Right, it seems he's become the poster child of militia style hero standing up against rioters and commies, and in this thread as a good example of why people need and AR-15 and 30 round mags for self defense.

Wouldn't it be kind of us all if we'd stop using this young man as a political football.

Deleted

WrongHanded said:

I've got some theories as to why the government did what they did. And I honestly believe that at its core is th concept of life being more valuable than property. It may have been a misguided decision, but I think the intentions were good.

Click to expand...

there are multiple accounts of people being killed by the rioters. A man was burned alive inside a building. So I have a hard time believing that it was about life vs property.

I do think that the .gov had a game to play and I do not think for a second it was about the well being of citizens.

WrongHanded said:

That aside, if you go (travel) to a protest that you believe will turn violent, you know you are choosing to accept the possibility of violence. It doesn't matter what side you're on, you're choosing put your life in danger over something that is less valuable. Pretty stupid in my opinion.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion and I respect that. It's actually 100% in line with my own opinion from about a year ago.

More recently my opinion has shifted to: at some point, someone has to stand up.
That being said, I won't go to a protest like the ones in Berkeley with the street brawls. But when the mob arrives at your door to burn your town (because, again, they were not from there), it may be time to "prepare to repel boarders!".

Space Ghost said:

The riots were started in the first place... due to anti-police racist lies brought on to effect political change.

Click to expand...

There are an abundance of legitimate criticisms of police.

NONE of them are addressed by looting, arson or murder.

I'm pretty sure that Chicago cops won't stop kicking in the wrong doors and holding toddlers at gunpoint because somebody steals a pair of Air Jordans, or burns down a Wendy's.

Corpral_Agarn said:

there are multiple accounts of people being killed by the rioters. A man was burned alive inside a building. So I have a hard time believing that it was about life vs property.

I do think that the .gov had a game to play and I do not think for a second it was about the well being of citizens.


That's your opinion and I respect that. It's actually 100% in line with my own opinion from about a year ago.

More recently my opinion has shifted to: at some point, someone has to stand up.
That being said, I won't go to a protest like the ones in Berkeley with the street brawls. But when the mob arrives at your door to burn your town (because, again, they were not from there), it may be time to "prepare to repel boarders!".

Click to expand...

Right, and as I've said earlier, I think the National Guard should have been brought in. The reasons for not using the police seems obvious to me: it would only exacerbate the situation. I know that it's one of the role the police are supposed to play, but in this instance I can at least see a good reason to have them stand down. Like I said, N.G. should have been used. Poor decision making.

WrongHanded said:

Right, and as I've said earlier, I think the National Guard should have been brought in. The reasons for not using the police seems obvious to me: it would only exacerbate the situation.

Click to expand...

What exactly leads you to believe that Antifa and BLM look ANY more favorably upon being arrested by the National Guard than by the police?

And once the National Guard gets hold of them, WHERE will they go? Guantanamo? Manzanar? They'll go into... POLICE custody.

Hand waving doesn't solve problems. It just moves around some air molecules.

WrongHanded said:

As this thread is about self defense, what's the first rule of self defense? I think it's something like "Don't knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation which is entirely avoidable."

I've got a lot of compassion for the kid and what he went through, and is continuing to go through. But let's be honest, he's still being used as a political tool. For the Left, he is the murderous villain who escaped justice due to his white privilege. For the Right, it seems he's become the poster child of militia style hero standing up against rioters and commies, and in this thread as a good example of why people need and AR-15 and 30 round mags for self defense.

Wouldn't it be kind of us all if we'd stop using this young man as a political football.

Click to expand...

It is 100% true that if safety is your ONLY concern, the first rule is to not place yourself into a dangerous situation.

It is also true (and not just a popular old saying) that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.

Being as Kyle works in the community as a lifeguard, he has trained as a cadet with both the police, and fire departments, and went there to render medical aid, and clean up a mess others made... (carrying a weapon only to defend himself) he is obviously the kind of young man that is service minded, and thinks of others first...

He may indeed be a political football for the both sides and their media lackeys, but I would simply categorize him as a... "good man".

Aim1 said:

If the police and national guard had been allowed to make mass arrests the second it turned from protests to riots the problem could have been nipped in the bud and stopped it and Kyle wouldn't have had to be out there with his AR15.

Click to expand...

Does that mean he wouldn't have been there? Are you certain that the whole crisis would have been averted? You might be right. We'll never know.

Deanimator said:

What exactly leads you to believe that Antifa and BLM look ANY more favorably upon being arrested by the National Guard than by the police?

And once the National Guard gets hold of them, WHERE will they go? Guantanamo? Manzanar? They'll go into... POLICE custody.

Hand waving doesn't solve problems. It just moves around some air molecules.

Click to expand...

As the protests (which yes became riots) were spurred by an issue (whether real or imaginary) with law enforcement, having the police do the work puts the enemy in front of people who otherwise would remain peaceful. I know it's tempting to assume that every single person on the street were directly involved in the riots, but that's rarely the case. However, putting their "enemy" directly in front of them in opposition, is far more likely to push the actual protesters over the edge and into violence. Which would be their own fault, but still would result in more injuries and potentially more deaths (police officers may also have become victims at this point, as we saw on Jan 6th). All that could easily lead to the increasing likelihood of more people traveling to the area to do the same thing the next night. Etc.

That's why I think the National Guard should have handled it. And all the other protests turned to riots. Because they're not the police. Either that makes sense, or it doesn't.

Space Ghost said:

It is 100% true that if safety is your ONLY concern, the first rule is to not place yourself into a dangerous situation.

It is also true (and not just a popular old saying) that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.

Being as Kyle works in the community as a lifeguard, he has trained as a cadet with both the police, and fire departments, and went there to render medical aid, and clean up a mess others made... (carrying a weapon only to defend himself) he is obviously the kind of young man that is service minded, and thinks of others first...

He may indeed be a political football for the both sides and their media lackeys, but I would simply categorize him as a... "good man".

Click to expand...

I'm not saying he's a BAD man. But a little more forethought to the possible outcome of going to oppose rioters may have prevented all this for him. Was the owner of the business there to protect his business himself, or did he just send kids to do it for him? Did he not have insurance? Was he really okay with having others put their lives at risk for HIS business?

I understand it's not a pleasant situation for a business owner to find themselves in, but I don't find the circumstances dissimilar to going into a hurricane to protect a business from high winds and storm surge. Some things are powerful enough, it's better to get out of the way and deal with the aftermath than risk lives in the moment.

But we're all entitled to our own opinions, aren't we.