I never gave an opinion on his decision to carry an assault rifle to a protest. All I did was try to correct the false narratives flying around here by pointing out that Rittenhouse acted in self defense.
Many took this reasonable (and legal) observation and disingenuously twisted it into a protracted attack on my sensibilities. When facts aren’t on your side, then attack the person; is the go-to debate strategy by many posters on this forum. So began the shifting of goal posts, putting words in my mouth, thoughts in my head, and inventing fictitious scenarios about what I’d do to protect someone’s car, etc.
It’s juvenile and considering I’m probably one of younger posters here, also incredibly sad. All this time spent on personal attacks in order to deflect from being so very wrong about demonstrable facts that differ from what you’d like them to be
My opinion is simply in favor of the freedom (the right) to not have your property or person attacked. Is it just guns you have a problem with? What if Rittenhouse somehow managed to throat punch one of his attackers and killed them that way? Would that be more palatable to you?
I grew up around the influence of Systema and Krav Maga where the goal is mainly to overwhelm and obliterate an attacker by whatever means necessary. My main concern is who is in the right and who is in the wrong and have a hard time defending people who are in the wrong even if the consequences are extreme and disproportional to their offense, I do NOT feel this way after the fact when calmer heads can prevail and societal laws can assess
My positions on the unspeakable wrong deaths of Arbery, Floyd, and countless others should show that I at least try to be consistent and argue in good faith
Even if I agree with this (which I do) it’s not for us to make that determination. If a property isn’t yours to destroy, then you shouldn’t destroy it. What’s so hard about that?
Would protecting your business against looters qualify?
Seems pretty plausible that a small business being looted/pillaged could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
I’m not even suggesting that was the true intention of Rittenhouse just that this conversation has involved some pretty ridiculous hypothetical examples.
Do you disagree with gas station owners in poor neighborhoods having a gun under the counter?
Hear me out. What if we had a particular group people trained and empowered to arrest instead of murder looters, and insurance companies to insure owners against property damage and theft?
So you’re gonna destroy someone’s property and then bitch if they retaliate? That seems like an insane, not to mention incredibly naive take. Surely this is your perfect world scenario and isn’t your expectation in real life
If someone sees you keying their car and they bust your nose, are you gonna cry foul? Or are we arguing about proportionality? Is them physically fighting you okay, but just not killing you? What exactly are we arguing about here?
This isn’t as inconsistent as it seems. The reason that calling the cops is bad is because the median cop is even more ready to use their gun than @Cactus .
I don’t think even the “abolish the police” crowd is opposed to having a group of people who can investigate property crime and arrest people who steal, just not the police as we have them. And no, this group does not have to stop the looting in progress at all costs.
Your silence on this matter is not a neutral position.
Had you said something like “This whole situation is a tragedy that could have been largely avoided if we didn’t have batshit crazy gun laws that allow a minor to carry a giant-ass assault rifle in public, but based on the letter of the law as it exists, I think this should be an acquittal”, you would be getting far less (if any) significant pushback.
I was commenting on the trial and all the terrible misleading media coverage of it. In fact, I believe I did specifically say that him being there with an AR-15 in the first place is a different discussion
I shouldn’t have to say any of this. People shouldn’t insert opinions where none are given. They are the problem and why everything’s so fucked up to begin with imo
And you’re doing it again. Implying Rittenhouse was acting as a vigilante that night when there’s absolutely no evidence for that! I’m sure this is where you’ll bring up some prior conversation he had to justify what you “assume” he was actually doing that particular night. It’s amazing how unscientific even intelligent people can be. It’s also positively frightening that some of you either already have, or may one day, serve on a jury
It’s a different discussion, but this is a message board with several ongoing discussions in a single thread. Your choosing to get involved heavily involved in one discussion and basically ignoring the other does paint a picture of your motives. You can argue that it’s not fair, but it’s why you’re getting labeled the way you are.
It is nearly impossible to cut this fine of a line.
You complained upthread about pragmatism. You know damn well what the culture war peddlers will do with the verdict.
I could get behind defending your own business assuming you took every other measure before firearms i.e. boarding up all openings etc…
Rittenhouse should have went to the scene unarmed and helped business owners in this way. He would have accomplished way more for society and also felt what the marginalized have felt for decades.