I’m just a big believer in one’s right to be left alone without being subjected to violence of any kind by others
This Arbery case is the exact opposite of Rittenhouse imo. Here, racists got in his business and if he had been able to draw and shoot them, I’d be fine with it. Zimmerman was the same. I’m sorry. I just don’t have sympathy for what happens to people who willingly put themselves at risk by initiating violence upon someone else. What Arbery, Trayvon Martin, and Rittenhouse all have in common is that they weren’t the ones who initiated violence and therefore had the right to use deadly force imo.
My outrage stems from the fact that had Arbery or Martin shot and killed their attackers, they wouldn’t have walked the way Rittenhouse did
When I took my hands off the wheel and closed my eyes on the Interstate, it wasn’t me that initiated the car crash. It was everyone else’s responsibility to avoid getting hit by me. Freedom!
Although, if you wanna say that he was recklessly endangering lives by bringing an assault rifle into such a scenario, I can get behind that. And if the prosecution had brought charges along those lines it almost certainly would’ve resulted in a conviction. Unfortunately, they went all in and tried to throw the book at him for maximum prison time. It rightly backfired
There is an objective difference between accommodation and reasonable accommodation. This is a major failure of contemporary conservative political views (they expect absolute accommodation all the time) and is a major failure of liberal democracies (they keep caving to demands from conservatives for absolute accommodation). This is a big idea and if you come to understand it you will clarify a lot of your thinking. You are acting like Rittenhouse was sitting in his living room minding his own business when three people stormed his house and threatened him. That isn’t what happened and its important context. Context matters.
of course it’s not, every time cactus does this dumb plausible deniability weasel-wording baloney people act like it’s the first time they’ve ever seen this guy
he’s 100% bad faith, absolute waste of time to engage with this guy
Among gun rights advocates it absolutely is controversial. They carry a fantasy that guns protect Good People from Bad People. Putting Good Guys With Guns in dangerous situations it obviously improves the situation. These socialist thugs were threatening someone’s property!
i wondered a lot about this last year during seattle’s chop. in days before a cheesecake factory got looted, and a few more storefronts. the police had heavy presence on another street but eventually moved to disperse. a mall was also a target at night and governor deployed national guard with batons in hopes looters would be scared off from a mostly empty mall neighborhood, which thankfully i think they did get scared off. it doesn’t cover every instance probably, but everything that i saw on tv, it would be trivial to collect the video footage and cellphone presence data, and charge actual looters later. there’s no actual need to deploy officers that could cost lives, but also you can save a ton of financial resources by insuring against damages from protests, and paying the storefronts back. the city should be taking out this insurance for damages from unrest, instead of paying for a much larger and militarized PD, with extra costs for litigation and restitution when misconduct occurs.
i don’t know if i would categorize this line of thought as pacifist or just financial. but the outcomes might be similar, in that property damage would be acceptable because of higher confidence the property would be replaced.
Nah, I’m just acting like he did nothing illegal under current law(s) and that every person who died that night was in the process of attacking him and either shouting, “I’m going to kill you”, smashing his head with a skateboard, or pointing a gun at him.
I’m onto the games that are played here. You guys continually try to move the goal post, use bait and switch tactics, and when those don’t work, you outright lie and put words and thoughts into people’s heads (not saying you do this, but many here are guilty of it).
If your problem is with it being legal to carry around a semi automatic assault rifle strapped to your shoulder, then just say that and I’ll join you. But stop trying to beat up on me because I acknowledge the right to defend oneself with whatever force necessary against someone saying he’s going to kill you, beating you in the head with a skateboard, and pointing a gun at you
These aren’t separate issues. The legal system problems arise in part from the cultural problems and vice versa. People with attitudes like yours around guns are enablers (and often direct instigators) of a broken legal system that puts bodies in the street. Congrats.
Yeah, well that’s not me, so don’t try and link me to it. I think arming teachers is batshit insane for instance. In fact, I think guns in most people’s hands is inherently more dangerous than if they didn’t have one
How so? All I’m doing is advocating for the right to defend yourself against violence. Would it make any difference to you if person A initiated an attack by jack slapping someone and person B picks up a tire iron kills off his attacker that way?
