Wangchung said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
Wangchung said:
Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
I thought we were talking about guns. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying any of those things. The point is you can protect without firing a gun (unless you're attacked).
We're talking about how you protect or secure something vs protecting yourself with whatever means you have at disposal. The police literally drove people away so firefighters could put out fires, set up barricades, used armored vehicles, and drove them back with rubber bullets. I think people are confusing some of the things that happened in Minneapolis vs Kenosha including you. Rittenhouse may have intended to help in some way, but he wasn't there to secure or protect anything but himself.
Okay, but I just don't get how putting out fires and rendering aid isn't protecting people and things other than yourself.
He didn't need the weapon to do those activities. EMTs and Fire fighters were doing the same without weapons. This hero narrative seems to be built around him carrying a weapon and for others shooting people.
It's been proven that he did indeed need a weapon.
It's playing whatif, but he wouldn't have been attacked had he stayed where he started, or with friends, or hadn't had the AR. The guy who first attacked him was mentally unstable, and wasn't attacking just anyone.
It's like walking through the worst parts of Chicago with handfuls of Benjamins. It's not your fault when you got robbed, you did nothing illegal. The robber is the criminal. But it sure was stupid. Or just try the same as a white kid carrying an AR.