Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Youd rather he be dead? That would be better?
No, I'd rather he stayed at home, rather than to play at police officer as a trigger happy youth.
Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
91–100 of 442 posts
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#92> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…
A very curious part of this is the president of the US calling him a white supremacist before the verdict is reached and the press secretary defending that portrayal [he shot three white guys]. A president who promised to 'bring normality back to the whitehouse'. That cavalier attitude toward justice creates unnecessary tensions in the community ['if the president says so, it must be true, and if the accused is acqui…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Juries have been wrong before, and many times at that. Personally I am sick and tired of the way this character is now put forward as some kind of saint, in my book he's a multiple murderer and there isn't anything that will change that. There is such a thing as intent and I don't buy for one second the self defense angle, that's akin to me tooling up with a bunch of weapons, walking into a bar fight and then shootin…
> There is a reason more civilized countries have decided that the state should have the monopoly on violence There are only two kinds of individuals that argue someone shouldn't have the right to self defense or the right to keep and bear arms: A) someone naive to history and the purpose of that rifle on the labourer's cottage wall or B) someone attempting to argue in bad faith as they wish to disarm them to do evil…
That's a false dichotomy if there ever was one but feel free to limit your view to those two options.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.
Are you not allowed to shoot someone in Germany if they fire a gun into the air and then point it at you? What about if someone is swinging a blunt object violently at your head? Is there just not such a thing as "self defense" in Germany? I feel like I sound like one of the right wing sympathizers but I'm honestly just curious how things work over there, are you willing to explain?
You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. Otherwise all bar fights would end in gun violence like in a cheesy Western film.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enough to be sick of it. This is not how you run a civilized society. The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons. But please ignore me, and ignore the future consequences as well, this isn't going to solve anything.
> The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons. Do you also feel that way about the armed vigilantes on the other side of the incident? Was it ok that Gage Groskreutz was menacing people with his gun, and was never charged with a crime, and never even had his gun confiscated? There were many armed civilians that night with guns, why…
Obviously, yes, but we're not discussing them, we're discussing mr. Rittenhouse.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you expect people to do when their lives are threatened? Just lay down and die?
If we follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then the other individual with the gun (or, quite literally, any bystander in such a situation, defending themselves from an active shooter) shooting and killing Rittenhouse would have also been a perfectly reasonable outcome. I have no doubt that he, too, felt threatened for his life by an armed gunman at some point in that altercation. I also assume that, as th…
That's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. It's easy to imagine scenarios where two parties could be legitimately acting in self-defense, because of what they reasonably -- but possibly incorrectly -- believe about the other's motive.
This kind of very easy dramatic escalation is exactly why carrying rifles around on the street at all should be illegal. But that's a separate question from the one of whether according to the set of laws we actually live under, Rittenhouse is guilty of murder or not.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, self defense is a right no matter what isle of the political spectrum you land on. Arguing otherwise here, means you A) didn't follow the case or B) are arguing in bad faith. BOTH of these options do not make for a good look on yourself.
I always wonder where the 'we need good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns' go when they're talking about Gaige. He saw Kyle, an active shooter, drew on him to get him to stop shooting people, and so Kyle just gets to shoot him? EDIT: This flamewar is not worth it (what did I expect in this thread?), but just please try to remember the lessons Batman tries to teach us about vigilante justice (it just encou…
For starters, a prerequisite to be a “good guy with a gun”, you need to possess and carry that gun legally, which Gaige did not do. He was a convicted felon, ineligible to possess a gun, much less carry one concealed. However, he was not, and will not be prosecuted for that, almost as if gun control people were not interested in actually controlling illegally possessed guns.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always wonder where the 'we need good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns' go when they're talking about Gaige. He saw Kyle, an active shooter, drew on him to get him to stop shooting people, and so Kyle just gets to shoot him? EDIT: This flamewar is not worth it (what did I expect in this thread?), but just please try to remember the lessons Batman tries to teach us about vigilante justice (it just encou…
For starters, a prerequisite to be a “good guy with a gun”, you need to possess and carry that gun legally, which Gaige did not do. He was a convicted felon, ineligible to possess a gun, much less carry one concealed. However, he was not, and will not be prosecuted for that, almost as if gun control people were not interested in actually controlling illegally possessed guns.
Legalism and moralism are independent concepts.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you expect people to do when their lives are threatened? Just lay down and die?
If we follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then the other individual with the gun (or, quite literally, any bystander in such a situation, defending themselves from an active shooter) shooting and killing Rittenhouse would have also been a perfectly reasonable outcome. I have no doubt that he, too, felt threatened for his life by an armed gunman at some point in that altercation. I also assume that, as th…
In a country where things like open carry are legal, the "logical conclusion" of your argument makes no sense. That would mean when anyone who owns a gun sees another gun in public, they can conclude that their life is threatened and open fire with no consequences.
This seems to be a bad faith argument, given that Kyle was being physically and brutally attacked when he correctly responded in self-defense. Quite different from your "logical conclusion".
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean I agree with you on the technicality, but the uniquely American view that someone can take a gun to a protest and not be looking for trouble is a very interesting one.
He took a gun to a protest because he had the right to do so. He can take a gun to home depot if he wants to. Doesn't matter if he was "looking for trouble", he had the constitutional right to do that.
That is clearly fucked up.