Two people are still dead because a punk-ass ***** breaking multiple laws wanted to pretend at being a tough guy and the police fucking let him. If those murders don't bother you, that's your own moral failing.
Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening
- Thread starter Iron
- Start date
- Status
Yeah I'm fine with charging him with reckless homicide and what have you. Like I said , 51%.
No you're not, because you keep making excuses for him, arguing for why what he did was right.
Again, nuance, there's shared responsibility here and he has the majority of it but to pretend that it's 100% his fault is ridiculous and doesn't follow the normal rule of provocation not being justification for assault or murder.
Making an excuse for him having all of the responsibility doesn't equal to believing he shouldn't have the majority of it.
So what you mean is that you should be able to drink a bottle of vodka, drive a car, hit and splatter a pedestrian's brains all over the road, and only be charged with driving under the influence because you couldn't have predicted how you reacted when you saw the pedestrian in front of your moving vehicle.
That's not how it works, is it? Consequences matter.
Your 51% figure is just a cheap, dishonest, cowardly attempt at having it both ways. No, you think he was justified. You do not believe that he should suffer the consequences of taking 2 human lives. You have made that unavoidably clear and everything else is window dressing to make your profoundly anti-human argument appear more reasonable.
This kid illegally transported a firearm he wasn't supposed to have across state lines and open carried specifically to pick a fight. Open carry is always an explicit threat. Because of his actions, 2 people are dead. Those actions must have consequences. Your argument is basically an expression of Neutral Evil: the laws only apply selectively and when they're convenient creating situations in which horrific acts suddenly become acceptable.
Ok, so discussing whether or not the terrorist is at fault for doing the terror thing. Righto.
This thread continues to disappoint.
Would the protestors be at fault for returning fire after being shot at?
Because the shot was in the air. No one knows where it came from.
If someone fires a shot into the air, does that mean anyone in the area who doesn't know where the shot came from have the right to "return fire" at anyone else who is holding a gun?
Edit: Also, the guy who was shot first didn't have a gun. Ego, the 17 year old murderer wasn't shooting at someone who had fired. ERGO, there was no "return fire"
Your quoted tweet says it was fired in the air. that's not being shot AT.
Would the protestors be at fault for returning fire after being shot at?
Because the shot was in the air. No one knows where it came from.
If someone fires a shot into the air, does that mean anyone in the area who doesn't know where the shot came from have the right to "return fire" at anyone else who is holding a gun?
Edit: Also, the guy who was shot first didn't have a gun. Ego, the 17 year old murderer wasn't shooting at someone who had fired. ERGO, there was no "return fire"
Last edited:
Yes. You go to a riot with a gun, you're at fault for shooting it.
Are the people chasing him and shooting guns in the air also at fault? Yes. Those involved who are still alive should also be arrested.
Yes, because the author of the tweet has the ability to analyze footage. Perhaps if Rittenhouse were able to stop time and astrally project himself to a different vantage point, he would have come to this same conclusion as well.
But he can't, or if he could, he didn't use this power.
So from HIS perspective, there's no difference between someone firing in the air, and someone firing at you, especially when you're running and surrounded by a mob.
That's the next tweet in the chain:
The fairest statement I've heard yet.
Last edited:
Yes. He's at fault for voluntarily going into a potentially violent situation without need, ready to commit violence and inciting confrontation, contrary to good reason.
When your argument is essentially a South Park satire, something is badly wrong with your argument.
USA
Should they arrest the people who are still alive that chased a school shooter too? They were trying to stop an active shooter from killing anyone else and they should be treated the same as anyone who tries to stop an active shooter. You don't arrest people for trying to save lives from the guy murdering people. The kid illegally had the gun there in the first place. he is 100% to blame here. There is no " shared blame". When you find out there may be " some action" and you want to go get in on that action to get yourself off and you get a gun, load the gun go across state lines illegally take the gun with the intent to " get in on the action" and then shoot people because they tell you to get your gun and instigating BS out of there. Anyone trying to stop him from killing people at the protest with the gun HE brought there are trying to save lives. The kid is the criminal here. He is the active shooter, not the people trying to stop him. If someone looted they could be arrested for that. If someone else was out after curfew they can get a ticket. But for chasing him, that is what you expect to see happen when you have an active shooter murdering people at a protest. The cops should have been the ones chasing him too. Actually, if the cops had done there jobs no one would be dead right now. He should have been arrested when they decided to be all buddy with him when he was blatantly violating the law and endangering himself and others right in front of them and they were too stupid to realize it. Kid walking around with a loaded gun and they didn't even ask him for ID.. The cops let this happen.
Last edited:
That's not a protest. That's a riot. There's a guy randomly unloading into the air while the shooter is being chased down into the parking lot. Every person's presence there added to the chaos, that's how riots work, but at minimum the guy trying to attack the shooter in the first place and the guy shooting into the air share blame for the shooting (one of whom is already dead).
What about the person who shot first? Is he at fault too?
I'm focusing on consistency. Either everybody with a gun is at fault, or nobody is. You can no longer use the "he shot first!" argument, because video evidence shows that this isn't true.
If the answer is yes, then I'm satisfied.
Who was unloading into the air? There was no gunfire that night until AFTER the militia troublemakers showed up in the first place from all reports I have seen. The curfew is a ticketable offence. Outside of that you have individual crimes. It was a protest. There were rioters at the protest. That is what often happens at protests. Why was the guy chasing him? Oh yea, because the kid was trying to instigate shit with his gun in the first place. The kid being there with the gun was a crime. He killed people while committing a crime. That is like trying to say that "the person chasing the armed robber to disarm him should be arrested". There is a reason why we don't do that.
I'm Tstorm's side here on the guns: feel free to arrest people negligently discharging firearms into the air. Use them properly and responsibly or don't use them.
No, you aren't. You're focusing on get-out clauses to exculpate the killer by attempting to draw improper consistencies.
Although, as above, I am totally in favour of charging anyone and everyone that fails to use their firearm with due care and responsibility. Albeit with whatever relevant firearm safety laws rather than murder if they didn't kill someone.
He wasn't talking about the people who were discharging guns, Who exactly was doing that BTW? People keep saying " unknown person" but from all accounts I have seen/ heard thus far, there was NO gunfire prior to the militia guys with the guns the kid came with showing up. Were they the ones also discharging their weapons? or did people "go get their guns" as a response to them bringing guns to the protest? T-storm was saying we should arrest the people trying to disarm the shooter. That is like saying we should arrest the bakers who used pans to try and help stop the attack in the UK. It is a terrible idea to start charging people for trying to stop someone from harming others. Of course we should arrest people for the illegal discharge of firearms, but we are talking about arresting the people trying to stop the shooter from killing people.
So, if one of the protestors had reacted by shooting Rittenhouse because they were spooked by the gunshot and thought it was him, that would be acceptable, because they can't stop time, astrally project and determine if the shot came from him or not either?
Because, hey, every single mass shooting in 2018 was caused by a right wing nutcase, so, it's a reasonable assumption that it might be coming from the milita guy who is CLEARLY there looking for trouble!
There's a CONSISTENT double standard I notice from a lot of people, and it really irritates me.
But hey, let's get to your one actually good point!
Yes, actually.
Everyone who had a gun when outside that night is at fault (although I'm not sure what you can charge the guy who fired a warning shot with, considering the INSANE gun laws in the states). And this includes the out of state "militia"/"troublemakers with guns and a power fetish" who showed up looking to intimidate people who are acting pissed because a man was shot in the back 7 times in yet another "cops gone rogue" incident.
As a Canadian, the US's insane gun fetish for arming every john dick and harry and so many morons fetishising "being able to DEFEND YOURSELF WITH A GUN!!!" like they're some kind of mythical cowboy (invented by Spaghetti Westerns with no basis in actual reality) is outright terrifying and one of many reasons why I am intensely glad I don't live in the ridiculous nightmare dystopian failed state just an hour or two to my south.
If there was some way to magnetically yoink all the guns away from everyone in the US and melt them down into limited edition figurines I would do it in a heartbeat for your own good because it leads to shit like this.
Depending on the circumstances, I could see that being "acceptable".
Everyone is screaming and running, you hear one gunshot, then another, closer this time. You whirl around and see somebody with a gun coming straight at you. Is this a spree shooter? Am I in danger? Is he going to shoot me next?
Something Rittenhouse did well was to identify his targets. He didn't get spooked and just fire blindly into the crowd or in the general direction of the other gunshots. He only shot people who were attacking him. What's more, he didn't just empty his magazine in a panic. He was careful with his weapon and his targets.
If you weren't attacking Rittenhouse, you were in no danger from him.
Thank you.
- Status