Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is clearly fucked up.
Clearly not since it saved his life.
Wow, shooting that bear at the zoo really saved my life.
Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
201–210 of 442 posts
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rittenhouse wasn't an 'active shooter' by any stretch of the definition of the word. Further, Grosskreutz knew that Rittenhouse wasn't one because he videod himself running after him asking where he was going, and Rittenhouse responded that he was going to the police. And yes, pointing a gun at someone is threatening their life, which makes shooting them self-defence.
Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. Is your argument that he was passive or that guns don’t shoot?
The argument is that he was going to turn himself in. That might be what you meant by passive.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you seriously comparing a seat belt with a gun? Sorry, I can't follow you there.
: shrug: you compared it to a sandwich
No, I illustrated that intent usually goes right along with bringing stuff with you. If you feel that that equates a sandwich to a gun then I don't know how to explain things to you for which I apologize.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rittenhouse wasn't an 'active shooter' by any stretch of the definition of the word. Further, Grosskreutz knew that Rittenhouse wasn't one because he videod himself running after him asking where he was going, and Rittenhouse responded that he was going to the police. And yes, pointing a gun at someone is threatening their life, which makes shooting them self-defence.
Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. Is your argument that he was passive or that guns don’t shoot?
Rittenhouse had shot one person, who had chased him and lunged for his gun, at the time the mob chased after him. He was not aiming his gun at anybody else nor did he fire his gun at anybody else until he was being attacked.
Grosskreutz had chased after him after he had shot Rosenbaum, but Grosskreutz did not witness the shooting himself - none of Rittenhouse's pursuers had. He got close enough to Rittenhouse to ask Rittenhouse where he was running. Rittenhouse doesn't turn around and shoot Grosskreutz, but instead tells Grosskreutz he's going to the police, to which Grosskreutz yells 'stop him'.[0] The fact is, Rittenhouse's pursuers didn't think he was an 'active shooter', they saw that he was running away, and didn't want to let him get away, and were trying to take justice into their own hands. And in fact, if Grosskreutz actually had thought that Rittenhouse were an 'active shooter', why didn't he shoot him right then?
[0]: https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
: shrug: you compared it to a sandwich
No, I illustrated that intent usually goes right along with bringing stuff with you. If you feel that that equates a sandwich to a gun then I don't know how to explain things to you for which I apologize.
Jacques, stop. You compared it to a sandwich. You don't get to complain that someone makes a comparison with a seat belt.
I'm European and extremely pro gun control / anti gun in general, probably moreso than you, by the way. You are blinded by your bias and it really shows in your posts.
Edit, to elaborate on why i think you're blinded by it: I am with you, it's utterly idiotic that people bring guns to these things and that this is somehow okay. But you can't judge US protester actions by EU standards, because over there and in that case, bringing a gun "just in case" with no intent to use it absolutely is standard.
The comparison with a seat belt absolutely stands, because it was brought "just in case". And yes, it's stupid that this is how things are over there, but you can't blame a seventeen year old for centuries of political idiocy.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gaige is a convicted felon who was illegally armed with a gun and drove to Kenosha to riot. It is hard to understand how you label him the good guy in this scenario.
He didn’t pull the trigger and kill anyone. He’s a chaotic good, sure. Rittenhouse is lawful evil. That’s all.
I wouldn't refer to someone charged with a DUI, or illegally conceal-carrying a pistol, as being "chaotic good".
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I illustrated that intent usually goes right along with bringing stuff with you. If you feel that that equates a sandwich to a gun then I don't know how to explain things to you for which I apologize.
Jacques, stop. You compared it to a sandwich. You don't get to complain that someone makes a comparison with a seat belt. I'm European and extremely pro gun control / anti gun in general, probably moreso than you, by the way. You are blinded by your bias and it really shows in your posts. Edit, to elaborate on why i think you're blinded by it: I am with you, it's utterly idiotic that people bring guns to these things…
I won't be told off by you or anybody else.
You don't 'bring a seatbelt with you just in case', the law says that you should wear a seatbelt when you are inside a moving vehicle (unless it is public transportation, in which case apparently it suddenly doesn't apply).
But you do bring a gun with you based on a conscious decision to do so, you do bring a loaded gun with you, and you do shoot to kill rather than to stop someone.
And I do blame a seventeen year old for doing all this, these aren't accidents or self defense by any stretch of the imagination and as long as America/Americans do not realize that this is the wrong way to go about this it will end in another civil war one day. And it is up to the rest of the world to show that this is not the only way to go about this.
I've lived in Canada, on the United States border. Canada has a pretty high number of citizens with guns, and yet the number of gun incidents per capita is a small fraction of what it is in the United States. This whole delusion that somehow allowing your populace to run around armed with military grade weapons is a good thing needs to go away. Before more people die (as they do pretty much every day on account of senseless gun violence).
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#208> 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…
I am not American and I didn’t follow these events but sorry for me after watching that video it’s still complicated: the self-defense seems justified, but the initial issue of protecting property with guns is not: material possession and private property is not on the same level as human life. I understand a law allows it in that state hence the jury logical decision, but that doesn’t make it right, just legal. Had…
Also being not an American, I'm puzzled as to how there is apparently no requirement to report self-defense killings to the police. I guess when they find dead bodies in the street, they just assume it was self defense?
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#209> 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…
I am not American and I didn’t follow these events but sorry for me after watching that video it’s still complicated: the self-defense seems justified, but the initial issue of protecting property with guns is not: material possession and private property is not on the same level as human life. I understand a law allows it in that state hence the jury logical decision, but that doesn’t make it right, just legal. Had…
The path from protecting property to protecting lives might be shorter than one wants to believe. People usually are not destroying property of others because its moral compared to taking lives, they do so because they left the morals of our society behind in the first place. Wanna take a bet that the guy running at you and screaming just want to tear your shirt?
>Had he not posed with an assault rifle in the first place two people would not be dead today
Had the victim not defended himself the offender could still offend today. I don't understand this victim-blaming, I really don't. If I see a guy with a rifle protecting his property, somehow its his fault I get shot after I charge at him?
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had followed the case since the beginning. Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. (Intriguingly, many pro-Rittenhouse voices were arguing that he was guilty of the gun charge, though some were a bit more eagle-eyed and read the statute the way the judge ultimately did when he dismissed it.) The interesting thing about Rittenhouse is that even des…
>Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. my understanding is that you can't claim self-defense if you initiated violence yourself. Threatening unarmed people with a gun, pointing it at them is a credible threat of violence that the people have the right to defend themselves from, and that is what they tried to do in particular by chasing that gun wi…
>Threatening unarmed people with a gun
a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age.
b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.