politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, but the shots were in self defence, even though he shouldn't have been there
So back to my comment:
He can go there, with his gun, to potentially take lives to protect property.
This is because the protestors are not allowed to damage property to protect lives.
That's America for you
What live are people protecting by burning a car lot? Or by punching an old man in the face that had a fire extinguisher (yes that happened the day before the shooting).
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/igd88n/old_man_beaten_while_defending_a_business_from/
From the article:
When the state treats a group of people's lives as less important than property, people are going to react to that.
I watched the video, the man was using the fire extinguisher on people, how would you respond if someone was using a fire extinguisher on you?
You really think those people were BLM protester?! Do you think this guy is also a BLM protester?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N70fok1R2Kg
Nvm that they were "protesting" the shooting of Jacob Blake which was 100% justified as it turned out the dude was abusing his girlfriend and pulled a knife on the police when they tried to arrest him.
The guy that hit him was some random person on shorts, they weren't even being sprayed on by the fire extinguisher lmao
But if you still want the answer no, I would not hit an old person because they used a fire extinguisher on me, I wouldn't even fucking be looting and burning a random store to begin with.
And the legal punishment for that is losing your legs? Cops in the UK take down assailants with knives all the time without paralyzing them for life. If they then had a jury sentence them to have their legs cut off people would call it barbaric, but again, put them in front of an American cop and "they had it coming."
Old man or no, he was assaulting people with a fire extinguisher and got assaulted in return. Why didn't he "have it coming"?
Oh right, because property is the most important thing and the property was in danger. "Won't somebody please think of the property?!"
Poor guy. Also you're starting in a very bad place if you are comparing US cops to UK cops, US cops constantly shoot people armed with knives and no one goes around "protesting" because of it, this case was because a very short video of only the shooting were the knife could barely even be seen was posted on twitter and misinformation about it spreaded instantly.
Insane that you would defend such person that would sucker punched an old guy. While at the same fucking time having a problem that kyle defended themselves from being attacked. amazing.
Also I don't know what drama you have with property when the people that were killed were killed because they attacked someone that was armed. So yeah stop whining about that.
If we could go back to my original post, I was not complaining about the people who got shot, I was pointing out Rittenhouse's own stated reasons for being there:
He brought a gun to an area he had no business being in to protect property. With his gun. What did he think he was going to do with it if not shoot people (take lives) to protect property?
Oh yeah, what kyle did is very stupid. But what the others were doing is orders of magnitude more stupid.
Not really, usually just having people armed is enough to deter others from looting, that's more likely what they expected to happen.
And it doesn't matter because no looter was shot here.
So yeah if you shoot at some people simply because they were looting you're in big trouble, or maybe you are, in the end in the US trials are by jury and most likely than not if you are the owner of the place it is very likely that the jury would not found you guilty, don't test it out though lol.
So the plan was to threaten people with a gun and people are surprised he got attacked?
What do you think the plan would have been if someone ignored the gun and went after damaging property anyway?
Unless they're by a vigilante or a cop giving someone a death sentence. Then they "had it coming."
Did kyle threatened people with their gun? Open carry =! brandishing
They yeah they would have fucked up if they fired on that person.
k
And why does having a person with a gun deter looting? Because it's an implicit threat that they will get shot. Hence, "threatening".
Are you for real arguing that armed people protecting a place are a threat to you and therefore you can use that as justification of self defense if you attack them? lmao.
"Yes your honor, this guy with a gun was a threat to my looting therefore I attacked them and because they fought back I killed them in self defense, yes they tried to flee but I still killed them anyway"
I am arguing that only an idiot points a gun at someone they don't intend to kill.
In the same vein I am arguing that only an idiot brings a gun somewhere to "protect property" if they don't intend to use it. (Whether they "want to" or not is irrelevant, if whatever situation they consider appropriate arises, they intend to shoot somebody.)
For someone to bring their gun somewhere they have no good reason being in order to "protect property" they need to be ready and willing to use it or they are too fucking stupid to be allowed to have a gun.
Which goes back to my original point: "you can take lives to protect property. You can not damage property to protect lives."
The property of complete strangers was more important to Rittenhouse than the lives of the complete strangers he would be shooting in order to "protect" it.
What business is this guy protecting by chasing people around outside of it with a fire extinguisher as they're leaving the business? The damage was already done at that point, there was no reason to continue escalating things further. When you put yourself in dangerous situations and personally decide to escalate them, you really can't be surprised if you get hurt when things escalate. Mess with the bull, get the horns.
https://www.fox6now.com/news/broke-his-jaw-man-in-his-70s-attacked-while-trying-to-protect-burning-kenosha-mattress-store
You make a good point, but I still feel horrible that this is what is being called "protesters destroying property to protect lives" and then get mad when they attacked rittenhouse and found out.
So people attack Rittenhouse and he shoots them in retaliation - perfectly acceptable
This guy attacks people with a fire extinguisher and gets punched in retaliation - Completely unacceptable
Yeah, if some psycho comes running to grab my weapon, you have every right to defend yourself, people willing to attack you even when you are armed are willing to do a lot of harm to you.
And in the second case they already began beating him up, including a jump kick to the head which is miracle they didn't pass out from that. And the other person pointed their gun at them (yeah turns out also those people were armed).
Yes, because they worked at that place and it fucking sucks that people would come to it to burn it, and more importantly the person that sucker punched them wasn't even being sprayed by the fire extinguisher, they were just mad that an old guy ruined his looting/arson fun.
Also if the old guy had had a weapon and shot and killed the person that sucker punched them they would have walked away in any state, no fucking jury ever would convict such person and for a very good reason lmao.
And if some psycho has brought a weapon to a dangerous area to threaten people with you have every right to defend yourself by attacking them and trying to take their weapon.
It is possible for situations to exist where both parties believe their life is in danger could claim self defense for killing the other. That is the situation Rittenhouse created here by going somewhere he had no business being with his gun. If any of those people he shot had killed Rittenhouse they could have claimed self defense and it likely would have been successful because their lives were quite literally in danger, evidenced by the fact that he killed them.
I don't know if this is different in the land where property is king, but I worked in retail and was told "If someone tries to rob you, let them. It's not worth risking your life for. property can always be replaced."
So if the correct course of action if someone claims to have a weapon in their pocket is to hand over all the money in the till, how does it make any sense at all to try to stop looting during a riot with a fire extinguisher?
No, they should not have been looting. Also, he shouldn't have been there attacking people with a fire extinguisher, what did he think was going to happen? The person punching him was also wrong to do so. It is possible to have situations where everyone is wrong.
The point is, why was the riot happening? Ignoring the cause (cops freely shooting black people unnecessarily) and focusing on "but but but THE PROPERTY!" to try to distract from the issue at hand really shows people's values.
You can't just attack people because they have a weapon wtf. There is also no indication that kyle threatened anyone with their weapon to begin with, you're just grasping for straws at this point.
edit: Also you can't really claim self defense if you CHASE someone for what? having a weapon? good luck with that. Recent example was the people that chased a black person in Georgia because they thought they were a burglar.
I suggest watching the legal eagle video of the judgement. He does an excellent breakdown of why the self defence verdict is valid, and why the people who were shot could have also claimed self defence if they survived.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DIR-hhat34LI&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiumbPU6YuFAxWPMjQIHXfdATwQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw3y6GfWrKjW-hyXGsgwnRql
That video very clearly states that having the weapon is not provocation to attack.
Also the breakdown of events from legal eagle is very bad, even hoeg law argued with legal eagle about that part of the video on twitter when they released it.
He downplays that a man chasing you throwing stuff at you is not going to do any harm to you may not be self defense kek, he also says "self serving testimony" this is worse than the arguments that the actual prosecutor tried to make lmao.
He also constantly says that one of the shots was in the back as if rittenhouse waited for him to fall on the ground to pop a shot in the back when all shots were in quick succession and the last one hit them as they were falling on the ground. He also says that a man does a "sort of a jump kick" when that was an actual jump kick to the head, that is aggravated assault in every sense of the word and that is more than enough to justify self defense but weird enough he downplays that.
So no, those other would have never been justified in using self defense, they had no valid reason to start chasing and attack him in first place lmao.
He even says that if WIsconsin had a duty to retreat the outcome of the case might have been different as if kyle tried to stand his ground...
WTF are you smoking? The dudes ATTACKED HIM FIRST... damn man...seems like you guys just insist on ignoring the facts.
Reading comprehension dude: WHY DID HE GO THERE WITH HIS GUN? What did he think he was going to do with it? He thought to himself "Some stranger's property might be damaged" and went there, with his gun, to protect property he had no actual connection with. Because the property of strangers is more important than the lives of strangers.