Probably time for a Kyle Rittenhouse thread.

[unsunghero]

There’s a lot more room to argue because Kyle’s actions to decide to put out fires and help people were good, his choice of setting to do them in was not so good

But when we consider self defense, it is possible to legally defend oneself with a gun and still be in the wrong, here’s an example:

I have a gun, I see another guy and decide to antagonize the living shit out of him verbally. I call him a bitch, a piece of shit, any insult I can think of based on his appearance or otherwise

He eventually gets pissed, picks up a rock, says “now you done it, I’m gonna beat the shit outta you”. As he gets close I open fire killing him


In this situation both people are in the wrong. The other person should have let the insults go, words are just words. And the person with a gun is in the wrong for provoking an innocent person into getting himself killed

Does this mean that the self-defense claim should be thrown out? Not sure what happens legally there, but both parties are in the wrong in that scenario

[starkind]

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

There’s a lot more room to argue because Kyle’s actions to decide to put out fires and help people were good, his choice of setting to do them in was not so good

But when we consider self defense, it is possible to legally defend oneself with a gun and still be in the wrong, here’s an example:

I have a gun, I see another guy and decide to antagonize the living shit out of him verbally. I call him a bitch, a piece of shit, any insult I can think of based on his appearance or otherwise

He eventually gets pissed, picks up a rock, says “now you done it, I’m gonna beat the shit outta you”. As he gets close I open fire killing him


In this situation both people are in the wrong. The other person should have let the insults go, words are just words. And the person with a gun is in the wrong for provoking an innocent person into getting himself killed

Does this mean that the self-defense claim should be thrown out? Not sure what happens legally there, but both parties are in the wrong in that scenario

you get reckless endangermentmanslaughtery stuff happening because you did do something wrong but you weren't premeditatiadly just hiding in the bushes shooting ppl big difference, even if you really wanted to kill that person that person still didn't have to attack you and u were still sorta respecting their rights just being a manipulative asshole

definately not murder per the law ish, because ppl go to a place have things happen without any intention at all and get fucking pissed and mad

---- that guy in wesley chappel who killed the guy in the movie theatre for throwing popcorn was pretty fucked up, similar tho and that guy was a cop

there's usually several things that lead up to stuff like that

kyle definately needs therapy and probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun or join the armed services unless he moves out to the middle of no were and carries only on his property

he's not a terrorist tho, and he's probably not a psychopath jeffery dalhlmer, definately a jerk and callous and immature and 150% not raised right

[Jibartik]

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

There’s a lot more room to argue because Kyle’s actions to decide to put out fires and help people were good, his choice of setting to do them in was not so good

But when we consider self defense, it is possible to legally defend oneself with a gun and still be in the wrong, here’s an example:

I have a gun, I see another guy and decide to antagonize the living shit out of him verbally. I call him a bitch, a piece of shit, any insult I can think of based on his appearance or otherwise

He eventually gets pissed, picks up a rock, says “now you done it, I’m gonna beat the shit outta you”. As he gets close I open fire killing him


In this situation both people are in the wrong. The other person should have let the insults go, words are just words. And the person with a gun is in the wrong for provoking an innocent person into getting himself killed

Does this mean that the self-defense claim should be thrown out? Not sure what happens legally there, but both parties are in the wrong in that scenario

yeah the problem here is even if you think Kyle was in the wrong because he brought a gun to a riot, you have to consider one of the guys he shot also illegally brought a gun to a riot, and that guy stands to make 10 million dollars if Kyle is convicted.

Makes no sense. Punishment would be irrelevant because there was a grand reward for the same crime.

[unsunghero]

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

yeah the problem here is even if you think Kyle was in the wrong because he brought a gun to a riot, you have to consider one of the guys he shot also illegally brought a gun to a riot, and that guy stands to make 10 million dollars if Kyle is convicted.

Makes no sense. Punishment would be irrelevant because there was a grand reward for the same crime.

Which is why you shouldn't go near protests, ESPECIALLY as it gets later on at night and only the disreputable people remain

These are likely already significantly low IQ people, who's low IQ is lowered even more by being part of a mob and sinking into mob mentality. These are people who will feel encouraged to attack you due to a perceived strength in numbers advantage

I'm not saying them being trash morons means they deserve to die. It does mean that if you plan to go near those people with a gun, then you need to realize that you WILL be killing other human beings that night, and be ready for the moral and legal consequences for that

[Jibartik]

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

Which is why you shouldn't go near protests, ESPECIALLY as it gets later on at night and only the disreputable people remain

These are likely already significantly low IQ people, who's low IQ is lowered even more by being part of a mob and sinking into mob mentality. These are people who will feel encouraged to attack you due to a perceived strength in numbers advantage

I'm not saying them being trash morons means they deserve to die. It does mean that if you plan to go near those people with a gun, then you need to realize that you WILL be killing other human beings that night, and be ready for the moral and legal consequences for that

Protests should stop at sunset, like they did on January 6th.

[starkind]

ya no offense but cnn has lost all integrity with me

so has Nytimes

as much as they are 'woke' fuck em, they propogandize and spin

[Jibartik]

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

ya no offense but cnn has lost all integrity with me

so has Nytimes

as much as they are 'woke' fuck em, they propogandize and spin

They are corperate overlords. Very smart people are like, "they are experts and trying to bring free dialogue to the people"

CNN: "Social media should be illegal"

lol

[walfreyydo]

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

ya no offense but cnn has lost all integrity with me

so has Nytimes

as much as they are 'woke' fuck em, they propogandize and spin

Please enlighten us on your journalistic alternative sources

[starkind]

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

Please enlighten us on your journalistic alternative sources

axios is better for starters check it out

a lot of times there is no good source anymore and you have to siphon the facts from the dogma no matter which sources you read and make your own decisions

[walfreyydo]

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

axios is better for starters check it out

a lot of times there is no good source anymore and you have to siphon the facts from the dogma no matter which sources you read and make your own decisions

Yes I like Axios. My point is that sometimes mistakes are made, mainly by individual journalists or editors, but that doesnt mean it completely undermines long-standing high quality journalistic sources.

My personal belief is all news should be not-for-profit and should be publicly funded with appropriate barriers and oversight to silo it from political influence, similar to BBC and PBS Newshour (although we have seen republicans rail against PBS).

The main problem with US news sources is that they are all for the most part "for-profit", which means they need to cover stories and issues which get the most attention. You have commentary and opinion which masquerades as news but is really meant to cater to people's pre-existing opinions and beliefs which does a better job of pulling people in/repeat viewership. At the end of the day, viewership is tied to ad revenue which is the driver of what gets covered and how. Peoples pre-existing opinions are catered to as opposed to informed.

That goes for Fox/OAN as well as CNN and MSNBC, as well as many traditional news sources.

By and large, your best source for unbiased news is PBS Newshour, NPR and BBC (although conservatives like to say its biased, its not, the facts just don't reinforce their message). There is no incentive for those sources to do anything but report the news to the highest journalistic standard possible.