Wangchung said:
ATL Bear said:
ShooterTX said:
ATL Bear said:
ShooterTX said:
ATL Bear said:
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.
For self defense. He chose to run away as opposed to keep people at bay with it while he "helped".
Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state, so he was required by law to run away. The entire time, Rittenhouse was obeying the law... only those ignorant of the law (like you) would believe otherwise.
It's amusing that your major criticism is that he attempted to diffuse the situation, instead of shooting first... so you would have preferred if he just shot them?? Somehow I doubt that you actually mean what you say.
Only an idiot would believe he ran away because of his knowledge of stand your ground laws in a state he didn't live in. Yes, if you're there to protect something you act like you're protecting something, not run away when it gets hot. The former is "heroic" not the latter. If you don't like the smoke, don't jump in the fire. Or wait, he wasn't actually serious about being a "protector"?
You are a moron.
Your idea would have negated the plea of self defense as it is only valid as a last resort.
If you use deadly force without first exhausting all other options... then you will be guilty of manslaughter or murder (not 1st degree).
Warning: do NOT listen to ATL Bear, unless you want to spend the rest of your life in jail.
He is a fool.
Brave brave Sir Shooter. You're the one arguing he was there to "protect things" with an extinguisher and a gun. This whole "when the police abandon you, regular citizens have to pick up the banner" narrative you guys built around Rittenhouse making him the hero. Then when I point out he didn't perform as such, you justify him acting like any other citizen with self preservation. The guy ran away, people attacked him, he appropriately used his weapon in self defense. End of story. You guys are the ones making it more than that.
You "forgot" quite a lot about what Kyle did that day. Must be an innocent mistake on your part, like forgetting that the presence of armed citizens is also a deterrent to most criminals out in public, save for the occasional mental patient pedophile.
You have any data on how much property or destruction was spared by the armed people being there vs the police that were driving them away? This is why I said what I said to Shooter. If you're saying you're replacing police because they aren't doing their job, then you do police things, like active engagement. This is why I've specifically said all along, being a helper vs a protector are two different roles. Rittenhouse was a helper in my mind and fled in a situation police or a protector would engage. His weapon was used maybe as a deterrent, although without the information above who knows, and it's real purpose for him was for self defense. There is no "armed hero" narrative here. He was fortunate he had it as personal protection. And only 1 mental patient was shot as I recall, so others were chasing and willing (or stupid enough) to die or be harmed.