Let’s say a person doesn’t like certain other types of people (be it due to race, religion, political views, or whatever), and that person also glorifies violence against those types of people and they glorify gun violence in general.
Let’s also say this person knowingly and willingly (and possibly illegally) puts themselves in harm’s way, while carrying a gun, amongst those same certain types of people.
Then they get into a situation where they have to use “self defense” in order to escape harm from those people. Luckily they had that gun with them!
Was it legally “self defense?” Yes, apparently. Could it be argued that it was also “hunting” disliked group of people, as if for sport? Yes.
Did Rittenhouse successfully use a self defense plea to get away with murder? Some would argue that he did.
I agree with your take for the most part actually. This is the kindest response I've gotten on Lemmy in the past year since this topic gets brought up.
Could it be argued that it was also “hunting” disliked group of people, as if for sport? Yes
He was 17. This fact could easily be argued the other way. In the days preceding the Kenosha riots there were riots in Minneapolis were stores were looted and some buildings burned. About a 1bn in damage happened. Kenosha is a small town where Kyle worked. Could it be he was also concerned about the place his father lived and where he worked?
Also, just because he received a non-guilty verdict I will be the first to say that doesn't absolve him of culpability in developing a situation that led to harm. As a European that lived in America briefly (ten years) I was very shocked when I encountered the gun culture there. I understand it but I never got comfortable with it.
Thank you again for not resorting to labeling me or putting me down. Gives me a little hope for Lemmy.
Could it be he was also concerned about the place his father lived and where he worked?
Vigilantism is also illegal. It could be argued that had Kyle stayed home those people would still be alive
It could also be argued if the child molester hadn't chased and tried to attack Rittenhouse that he'd be alive....same with felon skateboard man....and domestic abuser with the handgun.
Did that hurt? Should we call a doctor? You forgot to mention how left you are this time.
It's funny. No matter what I say, that's all you will attack. It's all about purity testing and how much of a team player one has to be. Never about what is being discussed.
In the past I didn't mention I was left and all I got to discuss was how evil conservative I am. Even though I despise everything conservatives stand for. I really don't know what to say.
In the past I didn’t mention I was left and all I got to discuss was how evil conservative I am.
Honestly, that is an interesting reaction when you take into consideration that you spout right wing talking points.
which right wing point did i spout that automatically made me a conservative on all my positions....
Which position have you vociferously defended aligns with a leftist position..?
just to be clear: in order to discuss this one topic, i have to bring up my whole bio and charter first right? Otherwise we cannot engage, correct? The never ending purity testing.
I align with all left positions: social welfare, gun restrictions, etc. But I shouldn't have to justify this in order to have a nuanced conversation with someone. This is the crux of the problem. Not even people on the left can disagree about something as basic as the facts of a case that was broadcasted on national television.
just to be clear: in order to discuss this one topic, i have to bring up my whole bio and charter first right? Otherwise we cannot engage, correct? The never ending purity testing.
I would have preferred if you didn't try to make the discussion about you and stuck to the points you wanted to make, but you did and now you're mad about it. Seems like a "you" problem.
I argue with liberals about gun rights all the time and almost never bother to state my political alignment, yet they never accuse me of being right-wing because my preference for policies like "arm the homeless" and "disarm the police" can't be confused for right-wing ideology.
I align with all left positions: social welfare, gun restrictions, etc. But I shouldn't have to justify this in order to have a nuanced conversation with someone. This is the crux of the problem. Not even people on the left can disagree about something as basic as the facts of a case that was broadcasted on national television.
You don't have to justify yourself, you just feel like you do to because you aren't what you claim to be. Actual leftists argue among themselves about policy all the time, about such niche positions that it might as well take a degree in political theory to tell a Posadist from an Anarcho-Transhumanist. From what you've shared so far, you seem to be a neoliberal, which is a right-wing ideology aligned with the Democrats that only seems "left of center" when the overton window is limited to Democrats and Republicans.
To put it another way, if you didn't want to defend your "left" credentials then you shouldn't have claimed them.
I've brought questions in the past without the credentials thing and the only thing that came of it was how conservative / boot-lucking fascist I am. No matter how I angle myself here I can't ask any questions about the events of that day.
There is no way out of the label tantrum game if you're not lockstep with the full narrative of what happened that day. I tried a different tactic today and obviously it led to the same result. Only this time: poser leftie pretending to be
In that instance the “protesters” create their own bad luck by putting themselves in a situation where self defense rules apply. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Would you be saying that about Rittenhouse if he died due to putting himself in that situation?
Yes, you’re at a protest that had devolved into rioting and looting, whatever happens now is entitely on you.
To be clear: He didn't happen to find himself at a protest. He actively went to a protest that he did not agree with in order to "protect property". He purposely put himself in that situation.
Let’s say a person doesn’t like certain other types of people (be it due to race, religion, political views, or whatever), and that person also glorifies violence against those types of people and they glorify gun violence in general.
Let’s also say this person knowingly and willingly (and possibly illegally) puts themselves in harm’s way, while carrying a gun, amongst those same certain types of people.
Then they get into a situation where they have to use “self defense” in order to escape harm from those people. Luckily they had that gun with them!
Was it legally “self defense?” Yes, apparently. Could it be argued that it was also “hunting” disliked group of people, as if for sport? Yes.
Did Rittenhouse successfully use a self defense plea to get away with murder? Some would argue that he did.
I agree with your take for the most part actually. This is the kindest response I've gotten on Lemmy in the past year since this topic gets brought up.
He was 17. This fact could easily be argued the other way. In the days preceding the Kenosha riots there were riots in Minneapolis were stores were looted and some buildings burned. About a 1bn in damage happened. Kenosha is a small town where Kyle worked. Could it be he was also concerned about the place his father lived and where he worked?
Also, just because he received a non-guilty verdict I will be the first to say that doesn't absolve him of culpability in developing a situation that led to harm. As a European that lived in America briefly (ten years) I was very shocked when I encountered the gun culture there. I understand it but I never got comfortable with it.
Thank you again for not resorting to labeling me or putting me down. Gives me a little hope for Lemmy.
Vigilantism is also illegal. It could be argued that had Kyle stayed home those people would still be alive
It could also be argued if the child molester hadn't chased and tried to attack Rittenhouse that he'd be alive....same with felon skateboard man....and domestic abuser with the handgun.
Did that hurt? Should we call a doctor? You forgot to mention how left you are this time.
It's funny. No matter what I say, that's all you will attack. It's all about purity testing and how much of a team player one has to be. Never about what is being discussed.
In the past I didn't mention I was left and all I got to discuss was how evil conservative I am. Even though I despise everything conservatives stand for. I really don't know what to say.
Honestly, that is an interesting reaction when you take into consideration that you spout right wing talking points.
which right wing point did i spout that automatically made me a conservative on all my positions....
Which position have you vociferously defended aligns with a leftist position..?
just to be clear: in order to discuss this one topic, i have to bring up my whole bio and charter first right? Otherwise we cannot engage, correct? The never ending purity testing.
I align with all left positions: social welfare, gun restrictions, etc. But I shouldn't have to justify this in order to have a nuanced conversation with someone. This is the crux of the problem. Not even people on the left can disagree about something as basic as the facts of a case that was broadcasted on national television.
I would have preferred if you didn't try to make the discussion about you and stuck to the points you wanted to make, but you did and now you're mad about it. Seems like a "you" problem.
I argue with liberals about gun rights all the time and almost never bother to state my political alignment, yet they never accuse me of being right-wing because my preference for policies like "arm the homeless" and "disarm the police" can't be confused for right-wing ideology.
You don't have to justify yourself, you just feel like you do to because you aren't what you claim to be. Actual leftists argue among themselves about policy all the time, about such niche positions that it might as well take a degree in political theory to tell a Posadist from an Anarcho-Transhumanist. From what you've shared so far, you seem to be a neoliberal, which is a right-wing ideology aligned with the Democrats that only seems "left of center" when the overton window is limited to Democrats and Republicans.
To put it another way, if you didn't want to defend your "left" credentials then you shouldn't have claimed them.
I've brought questions in the past without the credentials thing and the only thing that came of it was how conservative / boot-lucking fascist I am. No matter how I angle myself here I can't ask any questions about the events of that day.
There is no way out of the label tantrum game if you're not lockstep with the full narrative of what happened that day. I tried a different tactic today and obviously it led to the same result. Only this time: poser leftie pretending to be
In that instance the “protesters” create their own bad luck by putting themselves in a situation where self defense rules apply. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Would you be saying that about Rittenhouse if he died due to putting himself in that situation?
Yes, you’re at a protest that had devolved into rioting and looting, whatever happens now is entitely on you.
To be clear: He didn't happen to find himself at a protest. He actively went to a protest that he did not agree with in order to "protect property". He purposely put himself in that situation.