Kyle Rittenhouse = Based God

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To the extent that it doesn’t, that’s the jurisdiction of law enforcement. Not Kyle Rittenhouse or George Zimmerman

Law and order and all

Yes and law enforcement was either instructed not to intervene in rioting, or elected not to because of the extreme danger. A local police force can only deal with so much mass chaos. It's easy to monday morning quarterback the situation when you have no personal stake in it. Let's say you owned a business in kenosha that was your life's work to build up, and a mob was trying to burn it down and cops weren't doing anything to protect it. Would you want a kyle rittenhouse type to stand there and defend it, or would you prefer it get burnt to the ground? Equating george zimmerman and rittenhouse is absurd, completely different people with different motivations, acting in different situations.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To the extent that it doesn’t, that’s the jurisdiction of law enforcement. Not Kyle Rittenhouse or George Zimmerman

Law and order and all

That brings about the question of whether or not law enforcement is just in choosing not to enforce the law.

Theoretically, "Law enforcement officers" are merely an agreed upon deferrment of personal responsibility/action in enforcing the law, or securing one's personal safety. Should law enforcement be derelict in their duty and obligation toward the people in enforcing the law, and providing said safety, the onus of protecting one's self from harm ultimately falls upon one's self. Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes.

In a primitive state, one's law is rather subjective, as it doesn't require oversight or consensus. If my law says when you do "that", i kill you, and then you do "that" and i just kill you, thats that. Are you advocating for the continued dereliction of duty? And if so, do you understand the longterm implications of said position?

[Gwaihir]

At the crux of the matter, Kyle Rittenhouse was merely standing at a place located on Earth.

The concept of protecting "property" (not his own, to boot) with his AR15 may be "implied", however that is merely an implication, whether or not he was actually going to open fire on individuals seeking to damage said property is irrelevant to the discussion entirely, because he didn't open fire on someone enacting harm upon said property.

What did happen, however, was that someone attempted to inflict harm upon his person and charged toward him after making an explicit threats to inflict harm upon him because of his frustration with Kyle's implications.

If someone were to have begun lighting fire to the property and Kyle just indiscriminately shot him, then we would be looking at an entirely different situation. However, thats not the case. When pedoboy charged him while blustering threats of harm, he made a greviously stupid error in judgement that places Kyle's actions in the justified realm of self-defense. Had he merely disregarded Kyle and lit the place ablaze, one could raise considerable questions as to whether Kyle would have, or would not have, actually shot him, and therein lies the stupidity of our Darwin Award recipient.

[charmcitysking]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes and law enforcement was either instructed not to intervene in rioting, or elected not to because of the extreme danger. A local police force can only deal with so much mass chaos. It's easy to monday morning quarterback the situation when you have no personal stake in it. Let's say you owned a business in kenosha that was your life's work to build up, and a mob was trying to burn it down and cops weren't doing anything to protect it. Would you want a kyle rittenhouse type to stand there and defend it, or would you prefer it get burnt to the ground? Equating george zimmerman and rittenhouse is absurd, completely different people with different motivations, acting in different situations.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes and law enforcement was either instructed not to intervene in rioting, or elected not to because of the extreme danger. A local police force can only deal with so much mass chaos. It's easy to monday morning quarterback the situation when you have no personal stake in it. Let's say you owned a business in kenosha that was your life's work to build up, and a mob was trying to burn it down and cops weren't doing anything to protect it. Would you want a kyle rittenhouse type to stand there and defend it, or would you prefer it get burnt to the ground? Equating george zimmerman and rittenhouse is absurd, completely different people with different motivations, acting in different situations.

The reality is Kyle didn't shoot someone while "protecting someone else's property" He shot someone charging at his personhood threatening to kill him. Didn't pedoboy scream "im going to fucking kill you!" Or something along those lines, as he charged towards Kyle? He didn't scream "im going to fucking burn this place down" while charging at the property.

[Jimjam]

No, no. When you are defending someone else’s property you aren’t allowed to defend yourself. Thats why you’re allowed to troll the Buckingham Palace guards and they aren’t even allowed to react.

If you’re ever around St James park I strongly suggest you give it a go. Just walk up to the guard and slap him. It’s hilarious! They just stand there and take it. Make sure someone is recording when you do. Instant youtube gold, I promise.

[Jimjam]

No, no. When you are defending someone else’s property you aren’t allowed to defend yourself. Thats why you’re allowed to troll the Buckingham Palace guards and they aren’t even allowed to react.

If you’re ever around St James park I strongly suggest you give it a go. Just walk up to the guard and slap him. It’s hilarious! They just stand there and take it. Make sure someone is recording when you do. Instant youtube gold, I promise.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, no. When you are defending someone else’s property you aren’t allowed to defend yourself. Thats why you’re allowed to troll the Buckingham Palace guards and they aren’t even allowed to react.

If you’re ever around St James park I strongly suggest you give it a go. Just walk up to the guard and slap him. It’s hilarious! They just stand there and take it. Make sure someone is recording when you do. Instant youtube gold, I promise.

You first [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Woke Locc]

Originally Posted by Gwaihir [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That brings about the question of whether or not law enforcement is just in choosing not to enforce the law.

Theoretically, "Law enforcement officers" are merely an agreed upon deferrment of personal responsibility/action in enforcing the law, or securing one's personal safety. Should law enforcement be derelict in their duty and obligation toward the people in enforcing the law, and providing said safety, the onus of protecting one's self from harm ultimately falls upon one's self. Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes.

In a primitive state, one's law is rather subjective, as it doesn't require oversight or consensus. If my law says when you do "that", i kill you, and then you do "that" and i just kill you, thats that. Are you advocating for the continued dereliction of duty? And if so, do you understand the longterm implications of said position?

Police in America have no duty to protect (Scalia, 2005)

[zodium]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hey, my PhD is in Computer Science and from a top 5 school at that. Please don't conflate it with your BA in transgender studies.

That being said, I have probably already crossed the Rubicon regarding Imperialism/NWO crime families/Federal Reserve cartel/whatever you want to call it. I suspect if we really compared notes without flaming on what we think the great problems in society are without using a bunch of trigger words we wouldn't be all that far apart. Where we differ is our proposed solutions. Marxism is like saying 'I don't like my car, so I'm going to set it on fire'. Using your terminology, if the Imperialists control the government, giving the government more power will only help them.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is the list of politicians convicted of sexual assaults connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Note the incredible length of this list and how it encompasses both political parties. Consider that the FBI has known about Epstein for many years . . . and was busy protecting him, not arresting thousands of powerful men and women. Realize that this is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Understand why our government never acts in the interest of the people, but always in the interest of Wall Street.

Normal people with well developed courage, justice, and wisdom *should* be rioting against our government and lynching FIVE TIME PEDO RAPISTS like Rosenbaum. That's why the powerful have organized these riots and carefully orchestrated their nature to repel the average normal American and channel their frustration over the current economic collapse towards a number of scapegoats, including 'BLM rioters', 'Antifa', 'Corona Virus', and so on - anything except the true cause, a century of Fed welfare for the 1%.

the rules that govern behavior are not like laws enforced by an authority or decisions made by a commander; behavior is regular without being regulated. the question is how this can be.

marxism is just a box of tools engineered to answer that question, full of powerful tools like class analysis. it's a method, not a goal. what forces governed Kyle Rittenhouse's behavior? what forces governed the protesters' behavior? who are "the powerful"? how do they organize? who issues orders? who carries them out? how do they reproduce "powerful culture" over generations? marxism is a method for answering those questions.

yeah, it's a fucking conspiracy alright mate, but there's no puppetmaster, no smoke-filled back room, no big crime boss, no grand pedo dragon. we face a truly inhuman enemy, and I'm not dogwhistling aliens or fucking jewish people, I mean an enemy that is truly Abomination, an omnimalevolent enemy that means to destroy us through total information war and then reify the book of giants with its captains and titans as fallen angels. information wars have no commanders. they are regular without being regulated.