Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety Ah! so that is what responsible gun owner's gun safety looks like - 2 dead 1 wounded just because that stupid POS wanted to get off playing with a gun feeling all powerful. He didn't even bother to check on his victims and render first help (his skills he was so boasting about to journalists just 15 minutes before he killed his first victim), nor attempted to call for help…
> i just watch those Kenosha videos and see that only those militia gun fetishists are having guns No, this isn’t a matter for debate — it’s an established fact of the case, agreed to by all parties, that Gaige Grosskreutz was carrying a pistol. He also admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed the pistol at him.
Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
341–350 of 442 posts
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rittenhouse did turn himself in to the police. He was running towards them to do so, and when the Kenosha police wouldn't listen to him, he went to the police station in another nearby town.
Did he stop and talk to the police or keep going? How long after the shootings did the "police station in another nearby town" occur? Also, whom did the call after his first shooting-- the police or someone else?
He called his friend who owned the gun. No need to call the police when they were less than a block away. I'd also imagine that 911 was swamped given how so much of the city was being destroyed.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
He literally did report it, though. He walked straight down the street to the police and told them he'd just shot people.
Is there any police record? Or any evidence at all that the police heard that?
The two police in the vehicle testified during the trial.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m really susprised if they didn’t watch the videos and read about the case. Most people watch video now so is it possible they avoided all videos or they just didn’t believe the videos? Nobody I know didn’t watch the videos.
They claimed Rittenhouse shot someone who had their hands up and showed a picture. This was wrong for at least two reasons. First, they deceptively cropped the gun out of the image. Second, the video they refused to play clearly shows (contrary to the implication) that Grosskreutz wasn't shot until later when he pointed his gun. Likewise, the videos shown on most media networks were very selectively edited to remove…
If I can translate, your claim is that they are uninformed, which is plainly a fallacious argument. Just how could you know this? This is kind of an unrelated rant, but it reminds me just a little of Justice Scalia pulling a random and made up statistic out of his hat, something he couldn't possibly know about what most Americans believe that, oh yeah, was patently false, and used it to desecrate the 2nd Amendment, without 2/3rds majority of both houses of congress nor state legislatures, i.e. not the proper self-described way literally writ in the Constitution itself, and in fact beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's domain, effectively turning what Founders intended as a selfless right to fight tyranny into something the Founders debated and explicitly decided against including within the 2nd, a selfish, unimpressive and frankly mostly expressed cowardly, right of defense of self and/or property. It was far better before becoming redundant, as the right of self-defense predates the Constitution by some time, and the decision very uncharacteristic of Scalia, a life-long literal Constitutionalist, raising questions of senility and competence, especially because he died soon after. And it is merely one right among many that had been eroded around that time, including habeas corpus, the 5th and 6th Amendments, at least.
I've watched all the videos. I still think these deaths were felony murders. I think Rittenhouse is a coward like George Zimmerman. I know this is unrelated, but there were several accidental shooting deaths recently, little kids, babies, and the list of mass gun killings is astoundingly deep and still grows. The list of uncontested gun victims is massive. Where are their rights? Does a bunch of people's vane fascination with deadly weapons supersede an innocent person's right to exist? It is a fact that less guns leads to less gun deaths, and we will be much better off as society with what would be far smaller lists of mass punchings, kickings, pokings, stabbings and axings. It'd be more interesting to read about a malcontent that had punched 14 people before being subdued by authorities. We can, actually, outlaw guns, and it would cause less gun deaths and less gun crime, but we can never outlaw fists, and everyone knows you shouldn't hit people.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
pointing gun isn't necessary. As we know from for example many police shootings mere presence of a gun even at a minimally tense situation is usually already perceived as a threat even by well trained and used to guns people.
> pointing gun isn't necessary. If you threaten a person with bodily harm, I think it is reasonable to point a gun at them to get them to stop. Would you voluntarily get bashed in the head with a skateboard if you were in that position?
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
pointing gun isn't necessary. As we know from for example many police shootings mere presence of a gun even at a minimally tense situation is usually already perceived as a threat even by well trained and used to guns people.
Using police are a bad example, because they aren't held to the same standard as non-police. Whether that should be or not is debatable, but it's not debatable that there are clearly different standards. Police are routinely determined justified in killing people based on the possibility of a weapon, those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.
>those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.
these people were defending themselves and others around from Rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed man and just walked away not checking on the victim, nor waiting for police like one would do in a bona fide self-defense, and that made him to be reasonably perceived as an active shooter that is a threat to anybody around. Thus he created that violent situation of him being a threat and necessitating a defense against him, and he shot the people who were defending themselves and others from him. One shouldn't be able to claim self-defense in such situation.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
They claimed Rittenhouse shot someone who had their hands up and showed a picture. This was wrong for at least two reasons. First, they deceptively cropped the gun out of the image. Second, the video they refused to play clearly shows (contrary to the implication) that Grosskreutz wasn't shot until later when he pointed his gun. Likewise, the videos shown on most media networks were very selectively edited to remove…
> Very few of the "Kyle is a murderer" crowd have seen the actual full-length, unedited videos of what happened. If I can translate, your claim is that they are uninformed, which is plainly a fallacious argument. Just how could you know this? This is kind of an unrelated rant, but it reminds me just a little of Justice Scalia pulling a random and made up statistic out of his hat, something he couldn't possibly know a…
This is a fallacious argument, criminals don’t follow gun laws.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pointing gun isn't necessary. If you threaten a person with bodily harm, I think it is reasonable to point a gun at them to get them to stop. Would you voluntarily get bashed in the head with a skateboard if you were in that position?
if you're an active shooter in a populated place i think you're extremely lucky to get only slightly bashed in the head as normally much worse things would happen to you.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people, and shot and injured a third. Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed. I accept that every shot Rittenhouse fired fell within the framework of self-defence under the law. I also accept that he did have a legal right to be in Kenosha. Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with…
To preface this, I think Kyle is a wannabe cop and I still think he shouldn't have been there. But the narrative that he's a white supremacist is probably false. The bar incident occurred because it was arranged by Lin Wood who he fired afterward. Also the FBI investigated him and found no connection to white supremacists iirc.
Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s say you carry a gun. Someone attempts to rape you. Nobody is likely to die. Your argument says that you should just be raped. There’s a case (I think it might still be pending) about a drunk guy who hits someone one time and kills them. I’ve seen a video of a kid hitting his friend and killing them. In fact, a lot of people have died from being hit just one time the wrong way. Even if he weren’t armed, Rosenbau…
That wasn't my argument at all, actually: > I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them). Your other points are all good and interesting - one in particular caught my eye: > If they’d pinned him down, t…
He wasn't worried about that. He was worried about they guy trying to grab the gun in his hands (as proven due to the powder stippling on half of Rosenbaum's hand).
We've got the Joker just released from the mental hospital. He beats up the woman he's supposed to love and He's trying to burn down the city. How much self control will he have toward a complete stranger who is foiling his plans?
You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation.
What other options are there once the situation is inevitable?