|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 21 2021 06:48 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 06:41 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening. Would you have the same concerns of emboldening violence if it were Kyle who were killed by rioters? Would you be worried that rioters felt emboldened to kill people? "As long as they have any credible argument for self-defence whatsoever" is such a fucking lie. He literally ran for his life until he couldn't run anymore and even respected the feigned surrender of a man who pulled a gun on him. And it's all on video for the world to see. That is not itching to kill, that's doing everything possible to avoid it. "Because you feel like it" let's just ignore that small matter of the guy threatening to kill you and chasing you down and trying to assault you. Literally the only thing you have is a totally non-legal argument that you feel like he shouldn't have been there. Well he was. Does that me he deserved to die? Would that make you happy? I'm going to respond to you one more time until you slow your fucking roll, dude. I prefer that no one died. I prefer that no one had to get shot. I don't think the people who threatened Kyle are innocent. If they were the aggressors who hurt someone I'd want to see them taken to task for it. But you know what? This situation was entirely avoidable. Kyle knew the kind of shit he was placing himself in, that's why he brought the gun. He didn't bring himself with a gun to a protest because of any emergent or immediate threat to himself or anyone he loved, he went there because he felt like it. Know what's even better? He was literally talking about wanting to shoot people, and wishing he could get in a situation where he got to shoot people, right before actually fucking doing it. You're zooming in to the 5-second sequence of events that preceded Kyle shooting 2 people, I'm looking at the big picture and why Kyle was there in the first place. It's not like he had no idea he might find himself in trouble. He brought the gun that he expressed a desire to shoot people with, and he shot people. If he stayed home because he didn't want to shoot other people to death like a normal fucking 17 year old then perhaps no one would have died. Don't bother responding to me if it's just going to be to rehash yourself to me. I won't read it.
I don't care what you will or won't read. You're free to stop reading or responding whenever you wish. I'm not forcing you to do anything.
If you prefer that nobody died take the person who initiated the situation to task, not the person who fought for their life.
By your logic you can't bring a gun anywhere, you can only will it into existence while you're already in trouble.
It wasn't right before. It was 15 days before and he said "shoot at" and he said it to a friend. His behaviour on the scene clearly does not support that it was a serious threat on account of doing everything possible to not fire. If he were itching to shoot people why didn't he stand his ground and do it the moment he was provoked?
|
On November 21 2021 06:55 BlackJack wrote:
The court ruling sets a dangerous precedent where people might be discouraged to chase/attack a fleeing person with a gun now that the court has clarified they are allowed to use the gun to defend themselves.
After deliberately placing themselves in a dangerous situation with a gun that was always in plain sight because of how large it is. Context, my dude.
|
On November 21 2021 06:55 BlackJack wrote:
The court ruling sets a dangerous precedent where people might be discouraged to chase/attack a fleeing person with a gun now that the court has clarified they are allowed to use the gun to defend themselves.
That is a good precedent because chasing and attacking fleeing people is both incredibly fucking stupid and also illegal. If you see a person running with a gun you don't have carte blanche to attack them based on the assumption they're an active shooter.
|
On November 21 2021 06:57 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 06:55 BlackJack wrote:
The court ruling sets a dangerous precedent where people might be discouraged to chase/attack a fleeing person with a gun now that the court has clarified they are allowed to use the gun to defend themselves. After deliberately placing themselves in a dangerous situation with a gun that was always in plain sight because of how large it is. Context, my dude.
yes, fine
The court ruling sets a dangerous precedent where people might be discouraged to chase/attack a fleeing person with a gun that deliberately placed themselves in a dangerous situation with a gun that was always in plain sight because of how large it is now that the court has clarified they are allowed to use the gun to defend themselves.
|
On November 21 2021 07:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 06:57 NewSunshine wrote:On November 21 2021 06:55 BlackJack wrote:
The court ruling sets a dangerous precedent where people might be discouraged to chase/attack a fleeing person with a gun now that the court has clarified they are allowed to use the gun to defend themselves. After deliberately placing themselves in a dangerous situation with a gun that was always in plain sight because of how large it is. Context, my dude. yes, fine The court ruling sets a dangerous precedent where people might be discouraged to chase/attack a fleeing person with a gun that deliberately placed themselves in a dangerous situation with a gun that was always in plain sight because of how large it is now that the court has clarified they are allowed to use the gun to kill people and pretend its self defense.
Sorry, had to fix that for you.
|
United States24812 Posts
On November 21 2021 06:32 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 04:39 micronesia wrote:On November 21 2021 04:15 Lachrymose wrote:
I am specifically talking about places where open carry is legal. It's not legal to open carry on school grounds and many other places. You don't have to let me in your home for any reason gun or not. It's legal to open carry in the street where Kyle was. It's not my business to decide in which places it's legal, illegal or legal-but-I-don't-like-it-so-I'm-going-to-act-like-it-doesn't-count. Is it legal to open carry in a place that you are legally not allowed to be? ...Like when you are violating curfew...? I agree that 10 days prior, walking around outside in that area with an AR-15 was probably legal based on what you said earlier, but that's not the case we are talking about. If there was no curfew but someone brought an AR-15 into a violent riot, that one is more gray in my eyes and I won't try to argue it, but it's not really relevant for the case that's been discussed. The argument he could've left or gone somewhere else has no merit. Ultimately you're free to hide in your basement for the rest of your life and as such an dangerous situation is always optional. This is just a backhanded way to ban guns by proxy. The merit of this argument depends on the result of the previous one. They are connected. Andrew Coffee IV was found not guilty by way of self defence today/yesterday firing on a SWAT team because he claimed they didn't identify themselves during a raid. You hear about it when you hear about it and you don't when you don't, it has nothing to do with whether or not it happens. Self defence is fair and hopefully not going away any time soon. From the little bit of detail you shared this doesn't sound like the wrong verdict, to me. Turns out the violation of curfew charge was dropped since the prosecution could not present any evidence there was a curfew in place. I guess that was more misinformation. If you can't bring an AR-15 into a violent riot where can you bring it? Surely it's more appropriate for a dangerous place than a safe place?
This is new and I'm not sure why it wasn't brought up earlier, but okay, I'll take your word for it. If we disregard the statements Kyle made prior to the day of the event, then maybe the successful self defense argument/ruling makes sense in the American legal system considering local laws. I'm not sure we should disregard his earlier statements as the Judge ordered, but in the court case that's what happened.
I think the statement, "If you can't bring an AR-15 into a violent riot, where can you bring it?" shows very different values contributing to where we are coming from. Bringing AR-15s into a violent riot is increasing risk of deadly violence (on average), regardless of whether the local laws permit it or not. That's okay, so long as you are following the stipulations of the open carry laws, though.
Everyone bringing AR-15s would be even worse. During an event where tempers are likely to flare and mob behavior is likely to take form, it's bad to mix in guns (regardless of what the law allows). If one of these days we have an event where thousands of anti-racism protesters carrying AR-15s to protect themselves from dangerous people (presumably counterprotesters) and thousands of counterprotesters or good samaritans providing first aid and carrying AR-15s to protect themselves end up opening fire on each other in self-defense, it will be quite historic. Maybe that would be the push necessary to have reasonable laws about things like open carry, but probably not. There are too many people that are okay with escalation so long as the person who pulled the trigger was legally justified.... unless it ends up being their side on the losing end.
|
I agree with you and think that bringing the AR-15 increased the total risk of deadly violence and that is a bad thing. If Kyle is unarmed perhaps there is less chance Rosenbaum attacks him (but perhaps not) and there is less total risk for the population because it is unlikely things would have escalated beyond the two of them, but Kyle's personal risk factor increases tremendously. I don't think Kyle has a personal responsibility or duty to potentially die to reduce the global risk factor.
To simplify it to the most extreme, the total violence is reduced if Rosenbaum simply kills Kyle immediately, but I don't accept that as a better or more moral solution.
|
On November 21 2021 06:41 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening. Would you have the same concerns of emboldening violence if it were Kyle who were killed by rioters? Would you be worried that rioters felt emboldened to kill people? I feel extremely confident in saying that if Kyle didn't carry an AR-15 that night that he would be alive and well today.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening.
This, I think I’ve articulated most of my objections along this plane,
Whether Rittenhouse is one, it’s pretty clear that there was a trend of rather unsavoury white supremacist or fash adjacent characters turning up open carrying, with a mentality closer to hoping to get the excuse to use than hoping not to have to use them.
A trend that I, and I’m pretty sure most here saw as a worrying trend with well, pretty predictable consequences
Then that is further legitimised, and let’s be real if some leftist protestor shot someone dead under justifiable self-defence terms Tucker Carlson isn’t having them on and the cohort defending Rittenhouse aren’t going to have their back.
The advisability of specifically open carrying in such scenarios is, extremely suspect IMO. These are chaotic, adrenaline and emotionally-fuelled environments with huge gaps in information.
You have all sorts, but you round a corner and there’s some bloke with their intimidation stick out. Is he a Good Samaritan, some lone wolf nutjob about to shoot you, a member of some skinhead militia?
I don’t understand why these scenarios are discussed through the lenses of rationality and sensible, calm decision making, those scenarios are the polar opposite, and that absolutely should be taken into account into assessing what it is appropriate or sensible to do in that scenario.
Who knows, but he’s got a pretty big gun on him? With the caveat I’m talking this kind of charged, protest/counter-protest kind of environment.
If I’m just chilling out and some guy’s sauntering about with a gun on a sunny afternoon my reaction is going to be totally different to rounding some corner after a day of heated protest and the surrounding political invective and there’s some bloke stroking his rifle.
People get halfway there and justify open carrying in such an environment as a visible deterrent, without considering perhaps being visibly intimidating in a chaotic environment will have people see you as a threat and attack you.
|
On November 21 2021 07:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 06:41 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening. Would you have the same concerns of emboldening violence if it were Kyle who were killed by rioters? Would you be worried that rioters felt emboldened to kill people? I feel extremely confident in saying that if Kyle didn't carry an AR-15 that night that he would be alive and well today. Do you say that based on the facts of the case as-is or the assumption that Kyle would not have opposed Rosenbaum's arson attempt were he not armed and thus have not been targetted?
Or do you say that based on the assumption there were no unarmed deaths in similar riots?
|
On November 21 2021 07:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening. This, I think I’ve articulated most of my objections along this plane, Whether Rittenhouse is one, it’s pretty clear that there was a trend of rather unsavoury white supremacist or fash adjacent characters turning up open carrying, with a mentality closer to hoping to get the excuse to use than hoping not to have to use them. A trend that I, and I’m pretty sure most here saw as a worrying trend with well, pretty predictable consequences Then that is further legitimised, and let’s be real if some leftist protestor shot someone dead under justifiable self-defence terms Tucker Carlson isn’t having them on and the cohort defending Rittenhouse aren’t going to have their back. The advisability of specifically open carrying in such scenarios is, extremely suspect IMO. These are chaotic, adrenaline and emotionally-fuelled environments with huge gaps in information. You have all sorts, but you round a corner and there’s some bloke with their intimidation stick out. Is he a Good Samaritan, some lone wolf nutjob about to shoot you, a member of some skinhead militia? I don’t understand why these scenarios are discussed through the lenses of rationality and sensible, calm decision making, those scenarios are the polar opposite, and that absolutely should be taken into account into assessing what it is appropriate or sensible to do in that scenario. Who knows, but he’s got a pretty big gun on him? With the caveat I’m talking this kind of charged, protest/counter-protest kind of environment. If I’m just chilling out and some guy’s sauntering about with a gun on a sunny afternoon my reaction is going to be totally different to rounding some corner after a day of heated protest and the surrounding political invective and there’s some bloke stroking his rifle. People get halfway there and justify open carrying in such an environment as a visible deterrent, without considering perhaps being visibly intimidating in a chaotic environment will have people see you as a threat and attack you. Yeah, telling him hours earlier "If I find you alone I will kill you" and then yelling "You won't do shit motherfucker" at Kyle really drives home how threatened they were in attacking him. You're making up a story that suits your feelings and substituting it for what is documented to have happened on video.
|
United States24812 Posts
On November 21 2021 07:29 Lachrymose wrote:
I agree with you and think that bringing the AR-15 increased the total risk of deadly violence and that is a bad thing. If Kyle is unarmed perhaps there is less chance Rosenbaum attacks him (but perhaps not) and there is less total risk for the population because it is unlikely things would have escalated beyond the two of them, but Kyle's personal risk factor increases tremendously. I don't think Kyle has a personal responsibility or duty to potentially die to reduce the global risk factor.
To simplify it to the most extreme, the total violence is reduced if Rosenbaum simply kills Kyle immediately, but I don't accept that as a better or more moral solution.
Regarding the underlined, I would fully agree if Kyle was somehow being pressured or forced to be in the vicinity of all this rioting.
He was having it both ways though. He wanted to attend the dangerous event (reportedly with entirely good intentions, whether you believe that or not). And, he doesn't want to increase his personal risk factor much, so he brings an AR-15. We should all recognize that bringing an AR-15 increases the danger in a more global sense. I think his choices that check out from a personal responsibility standpoint were either to go without the AR-15, or not go. Making the choice that maximizes risk of people getting shot does not seem reasonable to me.
|
On November 21 2021 07:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 07:29 Lachrymose wrote:
I agree with you and think that bringing the AR-15 increased the total risk of deadly violence and that is a bad thing. If Kyle is unarmed perhaps there is less chance Rosenbaum attacks him (but perhaps not) and there is less total risk for the population because it is unlikely things would have escalated beyond the two of them, but Kyle's personal risk factor increases tremendously. I don't think Kyle has a personal responsibility or duty to potentially die to reduce the global risk factor.
To simplify it to the most extreme, the total violence is reduced if Rosenbaum simply kills Kyle immediately, but I don't accept that as a better or more moral solution. Regarding the underlined, I would fully agree if Kyle was somehow being pressured or forced to be in the vicinity of all this rioting. He was having it both ways though. He wanted to attend the dangerous event (reportedly with entirely good intentions, whether you believe that or not). And, he doesn't want to increase his personal risk factor much, so he brings an AR-15. We should all recognize that bringing an AR-15 increases the danger in a more global sense. I think his choices that check out from a personal responsibility standpoint were either to go without the AR-15, or not go. Making the choice that maximizes risk of people getting shot does not seem reasonable to me.
I wonder what other people you can apply the same line of reasoning to.
|
On November 21 2021 07:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 07:29 Lachrymose wrote:
I agree with you and think that bringing the AR-15 increased the total risk of deadly violence and that is a bad thing. If Kyle is unarmed perhaps there is less chance Rosenbaum attacks him (but perhaps not) and there is less total risk for the population because it is unlikely things would have escalated beyond the two of them, but Kyle's personal risk factor increases tremendously. I don't think Kyle has a personal responsibility or duty to potentially die to reduce the global risk factor.
To simplify it to the most extreme, the total violence is reduced if Rosenbaum simply kills Kyle immediately, but I don't accept that as a better or more moral solution. Regarding the underlined, I would fully agree if Kyle was somehow being pressured or forced to be in the vicinity of all this rioting. He was having it both ways though. He wanted to attend the dangerous event (reportedly with entirely good intentions, whether you believe that or not). And, he doesn't want to increase his personal risk factor much, so he brings an AR-15. We should all recognize that bringing an AR-15 increases the danger in a more global sense. I think his choices that check out from a personal responsibility standpoint were either to go without the AR-15, or not go. Making the choice that maximizes risk of people getting shot does not seem reasonable to me. I considered addressing this in the other post but figured in the end it goes without saying. I neither think he has a duty to give up his personal safety nor his personal rights. I don't think it is reasonable to expect him to hide in his basement to reduce the potential global risk of violence should people try to harm him. I don't think it's fair to characterise his legal right to be in public and his legal right to securing his personal safety as greedy. I think all people retain those legal rights and they should not routinely be choosing between them. I also think he has a right to clean drinking water and health care at the same time and that's still not greedy. All your rights are your rights. You don't trade them in and out.
I fully support people's right to protest a KKK rally and do not hold them responsible for violence enacted by racist KKK members in response.
|
I don't know the facts enough to say anything about the verdict. But when an 18 year-old teenager drives to a demonstration with a war weapon and shoots two people (possibly in self-defense), then it must be clear to everyone that something is terribly wrong in your country. I grew up in Germany in the 90's and like basically everyone had the highest opinions about the USA. When I see how the country has changed in recent years, it becomes more and more depressing....
|
|
|
United States24812 Posts
On November 21 2021 07:57 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 07:47 micronesia wrote:On November 21 2021 07:29 Lachrymose wrote:
I agree with you and think that bringing the AR-15 increased the total risk of deadly violence and that is a bad thing. If Kyle is unarmed perhaps there is less chance Rosenbaum attacks him (but perhaps not) and there is less total risk for the population because it is unlikely things would have escalated beyond the two of them, but Kyle's personal risk factor increases tremendously. I don't think Kyle has a personal responsibility or duty to potentially die to reduce the global risk factor.
To simplify it to the most extreme, the total violence is reduced if Rosenbaum simply kills Kyle immediately, but I don't accept that as a better or more moral solution. Regarding the underlined, I would fully agree if Kyle was somehow being pressured or forced to be in the vicinity of all this rioting. He was having it both ways though. He wanted to attend the dangerous event (reportedly with entirely good intentions, whether you believe that or not). And, he doesn't want to increase his personal risk factor much, so he brings an AR-15. We should all recognize that bringing an AR-15 increases the danger in a more global sense. I think his choices that check out from a personal responsibility standpoint were either to go without the AR-15, or not go. Making the choice that maximizes risk of people getting shot does not seem reasonable to me. I considered addressing this in the other post but figured in the end it goes without saying. I neither think he has a duty to give up his personal safety nor his personal rights. I don't think it is reasonable to expect him to hide in his basement to reduce the potential global risk of violence should people try to harm him. I don't think it's fair to characterise his legal right to be in public and his legal right to securing his personal safety as greedy. I think all people retain those legal rights and they should not routinely be choosing between them. I also think he has a right to clean drinking water and health care at the same time and that's still not greedy. All your rights are your rights. You don't trade them in and out. I fully support people's right to protest a KKK rally and do not hold them responsible for violence enacted by racist KKK members in response.
I'd be interested to poll people on where they stand on this issue, and then in a separate question poll them on a separate issue. Ethically (regardless of law), should people be allowed to refuse to get the COVID vaccine (after all, it's their body, despite CDC recommendations), and simultaneously insist they be allowed to go out into crowded places maskless? On the second issue, I feel strongly that people who want to disregard the guidance to get vaccinated should do everything they can to minimize exposing others. Otherwise, they are having it both ways. Things seem pretty similar to me with the issue we've been discussing. I'm not sure there's any way to reconciles a difference in perceived right to be super greedy at the expense of others with a simple online discussion with the people who vote the other way on the vaccine question.
edit: In other words, this is all boiling down to "my rights" vs "the rights of others collectively" and it's tricky.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On November 21 2021 07:46 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 07:39 WombaT wrote:On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening. This, I think I’ve articulated most of my objections along this plane, Whether Rittenhouse is one, it’s pretty clear that there was a trend of rather unsavoury white supremacist or fash adjacent characters turning up open carrying, with a mentality closer to hoping to get the excuse to use than hoping not to have to use them. A trend that I, and I’m pretty sure most here saw as a worrying trend with well, pretty predictable consequences Then that is further legitimised, and let’s be real if some leftist protestor shot someone dead under justifiable self-defence terms Tucker Carlson isn’t having them on and the cohort defending Rittenhouse aren’t going to have their back. The advisability of specifically open carrying in such scenarios is, extremely suspect IMO. These are chaotic, adrenaline and emotionally-fuelled environments with huge gaps in information. You have all sorts, but you round a corner and there’s some bloke with their intimidation stick out. Is he a Good Samaritan, some lone wolf nutjob about to shoot you, a member of some skinhead militia? I don’t understand why these scenarios are discussed through the lenses of rationality and sensible, calm decision making, those scenarios are the polar opposite, and that absolutely should be taken into account into assessing what it is appropriate or sensible to do in that scenario. Who knows, but he’s got a pretty big gun on him? With the caveat I’m talking this kind of charged, protest/counter-protest kind of environment. If I’m just chilling out and some guy’s sauntering about with a gun on a sunny afternoon my reaction is going to be totally different to rounding some corner after a day of heated protest and the surrounding political invective and there’s some bloke stroking his rifle. People get halfway there and justify open carrying in such an environment as a visible deterrent, without considering perhaps being visibly intimidating in a chaotic environment will have people see you as a threat and attack you. Yeah, telling him hours earlier "If I find you alone I will kill you" and then yelling "You won't do shit motherfucker" at Kyle really drives home how threatened they were in attacking him. You're making up a story that suits your feelings and substituting it for what is documented to have happened on video.
If I wasn’t clear I’m talking more in generalities, as I tend to do, being fully transparent that I’m haven’t followed the facts of the trial.
I don’t overly care for those, I’ve said numerous, numerous times in the thread I felt Rittenhouse was justified in self-defence, at the point that was required.
My point is that visibly flaunting firearms in that kind of environment is not smart, it doesn’t de-escalate tensions, it inflames them because people are coked up on adrenaline.
If you think it’s a good idea to throw that into a stew of disruptive protests, anger over social issues, anger over the radical left Antifa takeover, and genuine polarised political discordancy, I don’t know I have missed you posting either way on that question so I’m not presuming your position.
I don’t think it’s a remotely sensible thing to be doing, at all.
I don’t know if you’ve ever been caught up in a riot, or anything remotely close, I have inadvertently a few times. It’s a terrible feeling, you’re absolutely on fight or flight edge, scanning the environment for threats or some exit route. I can only say anecdotally that if some bloke in a gun appeared on scene that would be ramped up even further.
Concealed carry, to make it clear I think is a different matter entirely.
To boot I don’t think a lot of people care one jot about this, they’re just glad their guy shot a few Commies and skated, which is kind of what me and others have been alluding to as the worrying precedent and aspect of the case.
It’s going to embolden more people to join the ‘culture war’, turn up to protest/counter protest and with a non-zero chance you’re not going to see more shootings.
A policy of cultural de-escalation would be sensible, and look the left where I belong has to look in the mirror too. As much as we can say ‘mostly’ peaceful protests well, that’s not entirely peaceful and look it does have negative effects on communities and create a desire for folks to step in.
|
On November 21 2021 08:03 StabiloBoss20 wrote:
I don't know the facts enough to say anything about the verdict. But when an 18 year-old teenager drives to a demonstration with a war weapon and shoots two people (possibly in self-defense), then it must be clear to everyone that something is terribly wrong in your country. I grew up in Germany in the 90's and like basically everyone had the highest opinions about the USA. When I see how the country has changed in recent years, it becomes more and more depressing....
None of this is a new trend in the US; there’s a long trend of analogous events going back decades. If you didn’t see it in the 90s, it’s because you chose not to look at the ugly side of the US. Though to be fair, you certainly wouldn’t be alone in your ignorance.
|
On November 21 2021 08:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 07:46 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 07:39 WombaT wrote:On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening. This, I think I’ve articulated most of my objections along this plane, Whether Rittenhouse is one, it’s pretty clear that there was a trend of rather unsavoury white supremacist or fash adjacent characters turning up open carrying, with a mentality closer to hoping to get the excuse to use than hoping not to have to use them. A trend that I, and I’m pretty sure most here saw as a worrying trend with well, pretty predictable consequences Then that is further legitimised, and let’s be real if some leftist protestor shot someone dead under justifiable self-defence terms Tucker Carlson isn’t having them on and the cohort defending Rittenhouse aren’t going to have their back. The advisability of specifically open carrying in such scenarios is, extremely suspect IMO. These are chaotic, adrenaline and emotionally-fuelled environments with huge gaps in information. You have all sorts, but you round a corner and there’s some bloke with their intimidation stick out. Is he a Good Samaritan, some lone wolf nutjob about to shoot you, a member of some skinhead militia? I don’t understand why these scenarios are discussed through the lenses of rationality and sensible, calm decision making, those scenarios are the polar opposite, and that absolutely should be taken into account into assessing what it is appropriate or sensible to do in that scenario. Who knows, but he’s got a pretty big gun on him? With the caveat I’m talking this kind of charged, protest/counter-protest kind of environment. If I’m just chilling out and some guy’s sauntering about with a gun on a sunny afternoon my reaction is going to be totally different to rounding some corner after a day of heated protest and the surrounding political invective and there’s some bloke stroking his rifle. People get halfway there and justify open carrying in such an environment as a visible deterrent, without considering perhaps being visibly intimidating in a chaotic environment will have people see you as a threat and attack you. Yeah, telling him hours earlier "If I find you alone I will kill you" and then yelling "You won't do shit motherfucker" at Kyle really drives home how threatened they were in attacking him. You're making up a story that suits your feelings and substituting it for what is documented to have happened on video. To boot I don’t think a lot of people care one jot about this, they’re just glad their guy shot a few Commies and skated, which is kind of what me and others have been alluding to as the worrying precedent and aspect of the case.
Much like a lot of people from the other side were immediately sure this guy was a nazi out on a killing mission targeting peaceful protesters and now they can't accept that he's not guilty because he acted in self defense and apparently his only real "agression" was to put out a fire the rioters caused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
