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
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...