01 Dec 2021, 9:54 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I tend to avoid someone with a weapon, not rush up to attack them.
But hey, that is just me.
But hey, that is just me.
You wouldn't say that if somebody tried to disarm Anders Brevik, Adam Lanza or Brenton Tarrant and got killed in the process. All three of Rittenhouse's victims were trying to disarm him and (at least in their minds) save lives.
Irrational nonsense.
All the people you mentioned had planned mass murder.
Your argument is laughable.
Perhaps someone else can explain it to cyber.
I have better things to do with my time.
Of the three Gaige Grosskreutz was the only one who survived, According to him
He heard shouts from the crowd that "Rittenhouse had just shot somebody", Grosskreutz decided to run in the same direction Rittenhouse was headed. He thought his "services as medic might be more needed in the direction the defendant was headed."
"I thought that the defendant was an active shooter," he said. "Anytime you bring a firearm into that equation, the stakes are much higher for both serious injury and death."
Please don't fall for the right wing propaganda that all three men were crazy "paedophiles" who wanted to hurt poor little Kyle. That narrative is utter nonsense.
If you make things up, you simply cause more damage to your credibility.
I suggest you focus on the facts.
I do.
The facts are:
-The first guy accosted Rittenhouse.
-The first guy threatened to kill Rittenhouse.
-When Rittenhouse was accosted again, he run away.
-Rittenhouse was chased, fell, and trapped.
-Rittenhouse defended himself.
The fact is, the jury saw it as a case of self-defence.
I concur.
To me, the catalyst was the guy who initially accosted Rittenhouse.
If it wasn't for his mental state, the situation wouldn't have escalated.
Just my opinion.
You are entitled to have your own.
01 Dec 2021, 10:00 pm
Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Carrying a rifle, in America, is not a provocative act.
Let's talk about this. There is a strong disconnect between what the law and some groups of people advocate, and the actual emotion and feeling it can provoke in other groups of people.
I'm getting the feeling that you (and a number of others) are looking at the situation solely\predominantly through the environment in which you live (laws, social circle, community expectation\actions, etc.), rather than what exists in the location where these events occurred... What is seen as "normal"\unremarkable in one place (Kenosha, for example) may be completely out of place\illegal in another (New York) - The situation needs to be viewed from the position in which it occurred, not where the observer\commentator resides, which seems to be a difficult concept for some to understand\implement.
Thank you, my hero.
I thought the context was self-evident.
Many people *do* have a problem with context.
I did, when I was a young man.
01 Dec 2021, 10:17 pm
01 Dec 2021, 10:26 pm
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
And I wonder why it isn't. To me, it is.
Why would you take someone walking around with a slung rifle or holstered pistol to be provocative? Would you have the same reaction to a sheathed knife on someone's belt, or a folding knife clipped to their pocket?
Because too many people have talked openly in front of me about slinging their riffle with the specific intent of intimidating others.
Because when an armed group arrived in quiet Oregon coastal town, all the families that had been out enjoying the day quietly melted away.
Because while gun advocates love to laugh about the silly liberals who are afraid of their guns, the joke alone recognizes that those silly liberals ARE afraid of their guns.
How is any of that NOT provocative?
I agree with you (sorry Dox), but what about the progressive ratbags that are violently destroying America?
Have you *ever* criticised *them*???! ! !
Anyone destroying property is engaged in a crime and will arrested and prosecuted if sufficient evidence can be obtained. Plenty have been.
The idea that swarms of progressive rat bags are running all over the country without facing consequences is wrong on all levels.
Last summer some localities made unpopular choices unique to their cities and circumstances, but not at levels sufficient to support a claim of “destroying America.”
01 Dec 2021, 10:32 pm
Pepe wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well let's say Rittenhouse was looking for trouble. If a person is looking for trouble, finds it and then runs from it, and only decides to protect their lives after being attacked by the people chasing them, does that automatically make self defense, turn to murder, if the person running, was looking for trouble in the first place?
Seriously?
I think *you* are looking to incite "trouble".
There is no evidence that Rittenhouse was pointing rifles at anyone, apart in self-defence.
If you have any, present it.
Why are you going down this speculative path?
I think he is running with the question I’ve raised but taken it pretty far off the road I’m willing to travel.
I don’t have an answer for the discomfort I feel with the current state of affairs. I don’t like any of the directions one can currently run in an attempt to deal with it. I don’t want people to do more than sit with it and use it to understand why so many people are emotionally invested in this case.
01 Dec 2021, 10:43 pm
01 Dec 2021, 10:48 pm
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I tend to avoid someone with a weapon, not rush up to attack them.
But hey, that is just me.
But hey, that is just me.
You wouldn't say that if somebody tried to disarm Anders Brevik, Adam Lanza or Brenton Tarrant and got killed in the process. All three of Rittenhouse's victims were trying to disarm him and (at least in their minds) save lives.
Irrational nonsense.
All the people you mentioned had planned mass murder.
Your argument is laughable.
Perhaps someone else can explain it to cyber.
I have better things to do with my time.
Of the three Gaige Grosskreutz was the only one who survived, According to him
He heard shouts from the crowd that "Rittenhouse had just shot somebody", Grosskreutz decided to run in the same direction Rittenhouse was headed. He thought his "services as medic might be more needed in the direction the defendant was headed."
"I thought that the defendant was an active shooter," he said. "Anytime you bring a firearm into that equation, the stakes are much higher for both serious injury and death."
Please don't fall for the right wing propaganda that all three men were crazy "paedophiles" who wanted to hurt poor little Kyle. That narrative is utter nonsense.
If you make things up, you simply cause more damage to your credibility.
I suggest you focus on the facts.
I do.
The facts are:
-The first guy accosted Rittenhouse.
-The first guy threatened to kill Rittenhouse.
-When Rittenhouse was accosted again, he run away.
-Rittenhouse was chased, fell, and trapped.
-Rittenhouse defended himself.
The fact is, the jury saw it as a case of self-defence.
I concur.
To me, the catalyst was the guy who initially accosted Rittenhouse.
If it wasn't for his mental state, the situation wouldn't have escalated.
Just my opinion.
You are entitled to have your own.
The sole survivor is well on record as believing that Rittenhouse was a dangerous active shooter.
Different and opposing perspectives often exist in situations like this one.
Both can be true.
Under the law, however, it makes no difference what he thought. A self-defense case doesn’t care what the thoughts of the other party were. It can’t, really, because that would get far too muddy. It only cares what the person claiming self-defense thought.
But that also doesn’t change the injured man’s truth.
01 Dec 2021, 10:59 pm
01 Dec 2021, 11:04 pm
01 Dec 2021, 11:54 pm
02 Dec 2021, 12:01 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
And I wonder why it isn't. To me, it is.
Why would you take someone walking around with a slung rifle or holstered pistol to be provocative? Would you have the same reaction to a sheathed knife on someone's belt, or a folding knife clipped to their pocket?
Because too many people have talked openly in front of me about slinging their riffle with the specific intent of intimidating others.
Because when an armed group arrived in quiet Oregon coastal town, all the families that had been out enjoying the day quietly melted away.
Because while gun advocates love to laugh about the silly liberals who are afraid of their guns, the joke alone recognizes that those silly liberals ARE afraid of their guns.
How is any of that NOT provocative?
I agree with you (sorry Dox), but what about the progressive ratbags that are violently destroying America?
Have you *ever* criticised *them*???! ! !
Anyone destroying property is engaged in a crime and will arrested and prosecuted if sufficient evidence can be obtained. Plenty have been.
The idea that swarms of progressive rat bags are running all over the country without facing consequences is wrong on all levels.
Last summer some localities made unpopular choices unique to their cities and circumstances, but not at levels sufficient to support a claim of “destroying America.”
One word: CHAZ & CHOP.
Ok, two words.
Or is that three?
And then there was the violent "Racist Statue" incident, which even removed Abe Lincoln's monument.
Even Pepe le Pew was trying to be cancelled, but here I still am.
All the "woke" nonsense is destroying American social harmony.
France has outlawed this.
Even comedy isn't safe from wokeism, ffs.
The extremist progressive go-to is riots, looting, and property damage.
They simply need an excuse.
02 Dec 2021, 12:08 am
02 Dec 2021, 12:12 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I tend to avoid someone with a weapon, not rush up to attack them.
But hey, that is just me.
But hey, that is just me.
You wouldn't say that if somebody tried to disarm Anders Brevik, Adam Lanza or Brenton Tarrant and got killed in the process. All three of Rittenhouse's victims were trying to disarm him and (at least in their minds) save lives.
Irrational nonsense.
All the people you mentioned had planned mass murder.
Your argument is laughable.
Perhaps someone else can explain it to cyber.
I have better things to do with my time.
Of the three Gaige Grosskreutz was the only one who survived, According to him
He heard shouts from the crowd that "Rittenhouse had just shot somebody", Grosskreutz decided to run in the same direction Rittenhouse was headed. He thought his "services as medic might be more needed in the direction the defendant was headed."
"I thought that the defendant was an active shooter," he said. "Anytime you bring a firearm into that equation, the stakes are much higher for both serious injury and death."
Please don't fall for the right wing propaganda that all three men were crazy "paedophiles" who wanted to hurt poor little Kyle. That narrative is utter nonsense.
If you make things up, you simply cause more damage to your credibility.
I suggest you focus on the facts.
I do.
The facts are:
-The first guy accosted Rittenhouse.
-The first guy threatened to kill Rittenhouse.
-When Rittenhouse was accosted again, he run away.
-Rittenhouse was chased, fell, and trapped.
-Rittenhouse defended himself.
The fact is, the jury saw it as a case of self-defence.
I concur.
To me, the catalyst was the guy who initially accosted Rittenhouse.
If it wasn't for his mental state, the situation wouldn't have escalated.
Just my opinion.
You are entitled to have your own.
The sole survivor is well on record as believing that Rittenhouse was a dangerous active shooter.
Different and opposing perspectives often exist in situations like this one.
Both can be true.
Under the law, however, it makes no difference what he thought. A self-defense case doesn’t care what the thoughts of the other party were. It can’t, really, because that would get far too muddy. It only cares what the person claiming self-defense thought.
But that also doesn’t change the injured man’s truth.
Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" defending himself.
"The sole survivor", meaning the sole attacking survivor with a handgun, couldn't accurately have seen Rittenhouse as an "active shooter" until Rittenhouse defended himself.
Anything else was a mistaken belief.
02 Dec 2021, 12:15 am
ironpony wrote:
Why did he think Kyle was an active shooter? Just because someone in a large crowd yelled 'get him', and that's it? Was he just gullible to attack based on those two words only?
That is what I would like to know.
02 Dec 2021, 12:16 am
Pepe wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Why did he think Kyle was an active shooter? Just because someone in a large crowd yelled 'get him', and that's it? Was he just gullible to attack based on those two words only?
That is what I would like to know.
It's not rocket science pepe. You are making something simple into something complicated in order to fit a narrative.
02 Dec 2021, 12:30 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Why did he think Kyle was an active shooter? Just because someone in a large crowd yelled 'get him', and that's it? Was he just gullible to attack based on those two words only?
Why did a 17 year old think he could help in a volatile situation?
It honestly doesn’t matter if it was rational, he had a right to his beliefs and thoughts.
I think Rittenhouse had good reason to think he needed protection, even if he stupidly decided to put himself in that position.
"Young & Dumb", as they say.
DW_a_mom wrote:
If he had shot Rittenhouse instead of the other way around we’d be delving deep into the question, but he didn’t, and the law says to ignore it.
All that said, believing that the guy with the big gun is there to shoot people doesn’t strike me as big stretch.
All that said, believing that the guy with the big gun is there to shoot people doesn’t strike me as big stretch.
Neither is believing violent rioters are dangerous to the point of needing lawful protection.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Stolen Japanese Art found and returned to Japan |
19 Mar 2024, 4:19 pm |
| NY Judge Declines To Delay Hush-Money Trial of Donald Trump |
13 Apr 2024, 4:44 am |
| MTG Says Trump Civil Trial Judge "Should Be Disrobed!" |
23 Feb 2024, 3:56 pm |
