I think it's more of a matter of principle. He wants vindication.Why would he want his job back?
Who would want to work for such an employer? Especially as a LEO. If they'll throw you under the bus for a $25 donation, what'll they do when something serious happens?
Vindication I get. I just wouldn't want to work for the a**holes ever again.
Get reinstated, get back pay, quit, that I could do.
WHAT!?!!Just tell the department they must pay his salary till he's 65.
Let him get another job, but keep collecting that salary.
Even better, take some of that money from the salary of the ones that made the decision.
They should have some stake in it.
It seems like a simple case of "Liberal Projection." People are thinking to themselves, "I cannot conceive of myself being there with a gun helping people," therefore I cannot grasp why anyone _else_ would reasonably do so, either.There is a flaw with the whole "...he shouldn't have been there..." argument. It undermines the core values of almost, if not every, religion of man.
Christianity: "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." - Philippians 2:4
Islam: "Allah commands you to uphold justice and to do good to others and to give to the relatives." (16:90)
These were easy to find. I would lean toward Buddha saying something about helping others as well.
But let us ignore God. We cannot prove he exists, so faith alone may not be enough. We must depend, from time to time, without shame or embarrassment, upon the generosity of others. For we are human, and fallible and weak. It is our nature. We could not survive very well without being helped when weak and helping when strong.
This idea seeks to ignore these basic truths. There was a violent mob. It was rampaging and destroying property, which in turn had the potential collateral effect of destroying lives. Mr. Rittenhouse did what he could as he could to intervene and help. The lefts version is hypocritical. Help others by saving the environment but don't help by stopping bad actors. Help others by boycotting child labor companies but don't help others by directly protecting them.
Then there is the argument "...he wasn't trained..." Well, so what? Does this mean if we see an accident we shouldn't stop to help because we're not trained? If we see someone being ganged up on we shouldn't help because we haven't been trained to deescalate? If we see someone bleeding we shouldn't try to stop it? This is nuts.
Kyle Rittenhouse was exactly where he was supposed to be, guided by his own morals, ethics and decent intentions. To say otherwise is to undermine the very concept of helping and offering aid to others. It is absurd.
Regards,
Doug
You mean he survived and he hadn't been to Thunder Ranch ten times?There is a flaw with the whole "...he shouldn't have been there..." argument. It undermines the core values of almost, if not every, religion of man.
Christianity: "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." - Philippians 2:4
Islam: "Allah commands you to uphold justice and to do good to others and to give to the relatives." (16:90)
These were easy to find. I would lean toward Buddha saying something about helping others as well.
But let us ignore God. We cannot prove he exists, so faith alone may not be enough. We must depend, from time to time, without shame or embarrassment, upon the generosity of others. For we are human, and fallible and weak. It is our nature. We could not survive very well without being helped when weak and helping when strong.
This idea seeks to ignore these basic truths. There was a violent mob. It was rampaging and destroying property, which in turn had the potential collateral effect of destroying lives. Mr. Rittenhouse did what he could as he could to intervene and help. The lefts version is hypocritical. Help others by saving the environment but don't help by stopping bad actors. Help others by boycotting child labor companies but don't help others by directly protecting them.
Then there is the argument "...he wasn't trained..." Well, so what? Does this mean if we see an accident we shouldn't stop to help because we're not trained? If we see someone being ganged up on we shouldn't help because we haven't been trained to deescalate? If we see someone bleeding we shouldn't try to stop it? This is nuts.
Kyle Rittenhouse was exactly where he was supposed to be, guided by his own morals, ethics and decent intentions. To say otherwise is to undermine the very concept of helping and offering aid to others. It is absurd.
Regards,
Doug
I was just going to reply with pretty much the same point. You beat me to it. I’ve had people say that exact thing. It still comes down to saying, “he shouldn’t have been there.”Then there are a lot of people that will try to use a deflected argument and that is if they were in Kyle's shoes they would'nt have been there in the first place. They'll avoid the intended context of your question.
Their argument is irrelevant. The jury wasn't there to make a judgment on whether he should have been there or not because it was'nt illegal for Rittenhouse to be there. They were solely tasked with determining his guilt or innocence based on whether or not he had a lawful right to self defense.I was just going to reply with pretty much the same point. You beat me to it. I’ve had people say that exact thing. It still comes down to saying, “he shouldn’t have been there.”
When I ask if Grosskreutz should have driven 90 minutes all the way from Milwaukee with his gun, they kinda, Er, um, well, but, hem, haw, <make excuses for Grosskreutz which don’t apply to KR>. They won’t think about the possibility that they’re wrong.
I've enlightened a couple of people about the case. They ended up looking at the actual evidence and changed their tunes. It is hard though. Most will not take the time.I was just going to reply with pretty much the same point. You beat me to it. I’ve had people say that exact thing. It still comes down to saying, “he shouldn’t have been there.”
When I ask if Grosskreutz should have driven 90 minutes all the way from Milwaukee with his gun, they kinda, Er, um, well, but, hem, haw, <make excuses for Grosskreutz which don’t apply to KR>. They won’t think about the possibility that they’re wrong.
"Yah but, Grosskreutz isn't on trial, KR is the only person who shot anyone, etc., etc."...When I ask if Grosskreutz should have driven 90 minutes all the way from Milwaukee with his gun, they kinda, Er, um, well, but, hem, haw, <make excuses for Grosskreutz which don’t apply to KR>. They won’t think about the possibility that they’re wrong.
"Entangled Rifle Fighting ERF-123: Choking People via Rifle Sling" ...coz not every problem is a gun problemYou mean he survived and he hadn't been to Thunder Ranch ten times?
+1, well said. Rep sent.There is a flaw with the whole "...he shouldn't have been there..." argument. It undermines the core values of almost, if not every, religion of man.
Christianity: "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." - Philippians 2:4
Islam: "Allah commands you to uphold justice and to do good to others and to give to the relatives." (16:90)
These were easy to find. I would lean toward Buddha saying something about helping others as well.
But let us ignore God. We cannot prove he exists, so faith alone may not be enough. We must depend, from time to time, without shame or embarrassment, upon the generosity of others. For we are human, and fallible and weak. It is our nature. We could not survive very well without being helped when weak and helping when strong.
This idea seeks to ignore these basic truths. There was a violent mob. It was rampaging and destroying property, which in turn had the potential collateral effect of destroying lives. Mr. Rittenhouse did what he could as he could to intervene and help. The lefts version is hypocritical. Help others by saving the environment but don't help by stopping bad actors. Help others by boycotting child labor companies but don't help others by directly protecting them.
Then there is the argument "...he wasn't trained..." Well, so what? Does this mean if we see an accident we shouldn't stop to help because we're not trained? If we see someone being ganged up on we shouldn't help because we haven't been trained to deescalate? If we see someone bleeding we shouldn't try to stop it? This is nuts.
Kyle Rittenhouse was exactly where he was supposed to be, guided by his own morals, ethics and decent intentions. To say otherwise is to undermine the very concept of helping and offering aid to others. It is absurd.
Regards,
Doug
Really well thought out explanation. Sorry, I’m fresh out of rep and don’t know where to send it anyway.It seems like a simple case of "Liberal Projection." People are thinking to themselves, "I cannot conceive of myself being there with a gun helping people," therefore I cannot grasp why anyone _else_ would reasonably do so, either.
It's hinted at in the article I posted (putting aside the obvious factual inaccuracies:
"...It automatically feels wrong, doesn’t it? That a boy with no skin in the game is traveling to the inner city to protect it? It’s not his home, it’s not his family under threat; he is not shielding anybody he knows personally. He could have sat at home and minded his business and Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber would be alive. But the legal case didn’t rest on Rittenhouse’s intention at the scene. It simply didn’t matter, legally speaking, why he was there..."
The word "Reasonable" is the problem. For too many people, "reasonable" means "What I would do." And that's not what it means! I would personally not go Skydiving. But if I was asked to sit on a jury for a Skydiving lawsuit where the instructor got somebody killed, I could still place myself in an abstract-thought mode where I could say, "Okay, I would not have been there, but given that other people are allowed to "Do You," were their actions reasonable and/or legal?"
INGO discussions run into the same problem:
INGO Thread: >>>>> INGO Response:
Riots in Indianapolis... >>>>> "I don't go to Indianapolis"
Public School teaching >>>>> "I don't use Public Schools"
Woke Museum Fires Employees >>>>> "I don't go to Museums"
Facebook Censors Truth >>>>> "I don't use Facebook"
...and Liberals do it, too:
Boy Arrested in Shooting >>> "He shouldn't have been there"
It's missing the point. It is not the purpose of Law to hector people about how they "should" live their life. That's your Aunt Martha's job. The purpose of law is to govern interactions between people, where conflicts arise, based on examination of the Constitutional rights of the parties involved. People are getting wrapped around the axle judging whether the "interaction" should have existed in the first place. The Law assumes people will naturally interact with each other. Criminal Law is to establish whether they did so legally, not to tell people "Don't interact with each other."
The place for that, unfortunately, will be in the Civil trial(s), which are no doubt coming. It's a good thing that Go-Fund-Me ban is lifted.
Yeah, but he didn't cross state lines.I was just going to reply with pretty much the same point. You beat me to it. I’ve had people say that exact thing. It still comes down to saying, “he shouldn’t have been there.”
When I ask if Grosskreutz should have driven 90 minutes all the way from Milwaukee with his gun, they kinda, Er, um, well, but, hem, haw, <make excuses for Grosskreutz which don’t apply to KR>. They won’t think about the possibility that they’re wrong.
Amazing how they always leave out that Rittenhouse had family in KenoshaYeah, but he didn't cross state lines.
Ignore the idiots! Call out and ridicule them for their hypocrisy, and the support of the communists and their allies.We need to focus on what we can change, those people are dust in the wind.