Social Kyle Rittenhouse updates

[Mike]

I'm gonna start focusing on the muh 17 arguments with the fact that dozens of adults made the same decision. To call deterring arson, or arming oneself knowing they may face danger, the result of immaturity is hilariously stupid. Can't believe people are trying to pass this argument off as having merit. Yeah, mature people leave themselves defenseless and allow criminals to burn shit down. Derp.

We already have laws based on improper firearm use. Adding more afe restrictions after a shooting where a 17 year old was found not at fault, with his age not being a factor, makes no sense to me.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I'm kinda tired of the partisan accusation when I'm left leaning, and widely known as left leaning on here. The right to self defense isn't a partisan issue at all. I can't just disagree without being a partisan hack? Thats a very.... partisan take. Also, the law not wanting to get involved in these riots are exactly why citizens feel the need to. Who else is going to protect their communities if the authorities won't?

We've already gone over that it's legal for him to be armed. Yes, he's young. So our next step would be to look at his actual behavior to see it what he did was morally wrong, even though it was legal. He was not the aggressor, and attempted to flee and let the people assaulting him know he was not a threat. He didn't open fire until he was cornered by multiple assailants, some armed. One armed with a firearm.

I don't see how Kyle was in the wrong here. Being armed doesn't make him wrong. Being young doesn't make him wrong. Instigating conflict merely because he was armed would be wrong. Ethically and legally. People much older than Kyle have been found guilty of exactly that. That wasn't the case here.

I said 3 different possibilities, and you chose to focus only on the one that had to do with partisanship. I also ended the post by saying 'if we just disagree, fair enough'.
I also said 'you guys' and included @Cubo de Sangre in that post.

I also said that my point was NOT about the legality of Rittenhouse's actions. That I agreed with the verdict..so, I obviously am not against the idea of a right to self defense...like I'm pretty sure any sane person.
But something can be legally correct and still be worthy of criticism; the law isn't perfect. People keep talking about this case as if it's black/white. Rittenhouse is either an angel medic that is 100% in the right, or he is a white supremacist that crossed state lines in order to pick a fight with some lefties.
Is there nothing in between that? No nuance ?

It seems like you're not actually reading what I'm saying, my dude.
My point is less about Rittenhouse, and more about what allowed the situation to happen from the get go. If we want to look at the actions of looters and criminals, good, but we also need to look at the inaction of the government, a lack of response to the original peaceful protesting, and the idea that random people that are all fired up should be walking around with guns doing the job of cops---especially, but not only, if you're a minor.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

We already have laws based on improper firearm use. Adding more afe restrictions after a shooting where a 17 year old was found not at fault, with his age not being a factor, makes no sense to me.

Should be age restrictions on rioting. Maybe take some courses and pass a test.

 

[Mike]

I said 3 different possibilities, and you chose to focus only on the one that had to do with partisanship. I also ended the post by saying 'if we just disagree, fair enough'.
I also said 'you guys' and included @Cubo de Sangre in that post.

I also said that my point was NOT about the legality of Rittenhouse's actions. That I agreed with the verdict..so, I obviously am not against the idea of a right to self defense...like I'm pretty sure any sane person.
But something can be legally correct and still be worthy of criticism; the law isn't perfect. People keep talking about this case as if it's black/white. Rittenhouse is either an angel medic that is 100% in the right, or he is a white supremacist that crossed state lines in order to pick a fight with some lefties.
Is there nothing in between that? No nuance ?

It seems like you're not actually reading what I'm saying, my dude.
My point is less about Rittenhouse, and more about what allowed the situation to happen from the get go. If we want to look at the actions of looters and criminals, good, but we also need to look at the inaction of the government, a lack of response to the original peaceful protesting, and the idea that random people that are all fired up should be walking around with guns doing the job of cops---especially, but not only, if you're a minor.

I did read and respond to your other points. If its legal, we go into if its legal but still ethically wrong. I dont see how it is. I dont disagree that authorities not reacting is a huge part of the problem. Citizens shouldn't have to arm themselves and defend their communities. But legally they can, and imo if the authorities won't do their job than ethically they must. If the authorities continue to just let riots go, we'll see more citizens exercising their rights to carry firearms and defend themselves, not less.

But your criticism doesn't seem to just fall on authorities. I wouldn't have posted anything if that was the case. A lot of it seems to fall on Kyle for being there armed while being a 17 year old. That's not relevant to me unless there's evidence he acted inappropriately because of his age. There isn't.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Yes, they should vote out the politicians that left their communities in the lurch. But you know what, that means jack and shit while shit's getting looted and burned. Fuck is the business supposed to do? Ask the arsonists to hold on a minute while a recall ballot is undertaken?

If you don't believe people have a right to stop arsonists then I don't know what to say. Except don't couch it in muh he was only 17 crap, because there were plenty of adults there doing the same thing. The only difference is some cowardly pedophile seized on a chance to try to victimize what he thought was easy prey and he ended up taking a the asphalt temperature challenge for his poor decision making. I repeat, adults were there making the same decision to stand up to crime as Kyle, so let's not pretend that it's something mature, honest, and good people would never do.

Great. Glad we agree on the verdict. I personally hope more people will take up arms and challenge people burning down businesses in the future. Don't create a dangerous situation with lawlessness and attack good people. Then you don't have to worry about getting shot. More power to anyone and everyone who does that. That you're comfortable letting lawlessness run wild is something you should maybe rethink.

I think this is shortsighted and reactionary, and a recipe for disaster, and that we should be looking at the bigger picture in order to avoid this.
More people arming up isn't going to fix anything. You're just going to get more dead people. And at the next protest, people are going to feel a little bit more comfortable in pulling the trigger. Some Antifa turd will eventually try and pull a 'Rittenhouse'.
I'm not anti-2nd, but the gun culture in America is already garbage-tier. The last thing we need is more of this "FAFO" culture.

You keep trying to paint this black/white picture, of me being "comfortable" with lawlessness/people don't have a right to stop arson/etc, when I'm the one actually focused on the heart of the problem. And the heart of the problem isn't Rittenhouse or a cowardly pedophile. All of this focus on people who ultimately don't matter, and meanwhile, nothing changes. Imagine if the same amount of attention and energy was put on why there wasn't more police action, and why the government and police didn't address the massive protests before they turned violent.
Voting is one thing, but it's also about where people decide to direct their energy, and it's almost never on the things that actually matter.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I did read and respond to your other points. If its legal, we go into if its legal but still ethically wrong. I dont see how it is. I dont disagree that authorities not reacting is a huge part of the problem. Citizens shouldn't have to arm themselves and defend their communities. But legally they can, and imo if the authorities won't do their job than ethically they must. If the authorities continue to just let riots go, we'll see more citizens exercising their rights to carry firearms and defend themselves, not less.

But your criticism doesn't seem to just fall on authorities. I wouldn't have posted anything if that was the case. A lot of it seems to fall on Kyle for being there armed while being a 17 year old. That's not relevant to me unless there's evidence he acted inappropriately because of his age. There isn't.

My criticism doesn't just fall on the authorities because I don't think it is only their fault. They have the bulk of the blame because none of this would have ever happened without the inaction of the government and police.
The fact that a 17 year old is walking around in a volatile area with a gun is the definition of inappropriate. In a world that isn't overrun by a zombie apocalypse, it'd be inappropriate for anyone, but as I said, especially so for a minor. We seem to be unlikely to agree on this point, so we don't need to go back and forth on it.
My larger point really comes down to how much focus has been put on Rittenhouse, and not on the people that had the power to prevent the whole thing for a whole year.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

More people arming up isn't going to fix anything.

I disagree. You may think it's a coincidence that BLM violence tapered off after Kenosha. I don't. If you want to argue that curbing those activities undermines progress then I'm listening.

You're just going to get more dead people.

Not my problem since I don't loot and burn innocent businesses. Maybe peaceful protests should actually be peaceful. Or we get martyrs and that's how the history of the world goes. Don't wanna be one? Then don't engage in mayhem.

Imagine if the same amount of attention and energy was put on why there wasn't more police action, and why the government and police didn't address the massive protests before they turned violent.

Well, let's be honest here. The Democrat jurisdictions is where most of this shit took place. And Democratic leadership has been accused of allowing these riots to take place for political gain. You can handwave that off, but if you're gonna do that then put forth a better theory as to why months of rioting, violence, and destruction wasn't met with greater resistance from police and the national guard.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The fact that a 17 year old is walking around in a volatile area with a gun is the definition of inappropriate.

No it isn't. Him being five months older magically changes everything that was happening throughout the country? Are you able to acknowledge the 17 is fighting age? It's literally encoded in US law. Do you even unorganized militia, bro?

If you don't like some shit going down that's cool, but this mantra of muh "17 year old" is worthless.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I disagree. You may think it's a coincidence that BLM violence tapered off after Kenosha. I don't. If you want to argue that curbing those activities undermines progress then I'm listening.



Not my problem since I don't loot and burn innocent businesses. Maybe peaceful protests should actually be peaceful. Or we get martyrs and that's how the history of the world goes. Don't wanna be one? Then don't engage in mayhem.



Well, let's be honest here. The Democrat jurisdictions is where most of this shit took place. And Democratic leadership has been accused of allowing these riots to take place for political gain. You can handwave that off, but if you're gonna do that then put forth a better theory as to why months of rioting, violence, and destruction wasn't met with greater resistance from police and the national guard.

Well, I'm obviously not only talking about what is good for Cubo de Sangre here. But life on your private island sounds like it is nice and cozy.

I'm talking about the general climate and environment for the rest of us plebs. More stupid, righteous people arming up isn't good for anyone. Thus my issue with 17 year olds walking around protests with weapons. If cops can get wrong, so can your local dumb ass that is enraged by ____ culture war of the day.


I think the argument about 'Democrat cities' is a silly one. Most highly populated urban cities are Democrat jurisdictions. Highly populated areas tend to have bigger problems when it comes to poverty and crime. I don't see what political gain there would be in allowing riots when there are better solutions that existed....like actually addressing some of the demands of the protest. Incompetence , lack of leadership, and a disconnect from the public are more likely explanations.
This was also the year of COVID, lockdowns, massive protests and counter protests, and big bad Trump was still in office. I think it is more likely that leadership didnt' want to be the one to light the powder keg, and chose to do what Democrats usually do, and that's a whole lot of nothing and virtue signaling. That being said, it's not like this was a simple problem to solve. More police and national guard could've blown this up even more than it already did.

 

[crabmeat]

I disagree. You may think it's a coincidence that BLM violence tapered off after Kenosha. I don't. If you want to argue that curbing those activities undermines progress then I'm listening.



Not my problem since I don't loot and burn innocent businesses. Maybe peaceful protests should actually be peaceful. Or we get martyrs and that's how the history of the world goes. Don't wanna be one? Then don't engage in mayhem.



Well, let's be honest here. The Democrat jurisdictions is where most of this shit took place. And Democratic leadership has been accused of allowing these riots to take place for political gain. You can handwave that off, but if you're gonna do that then put forth a better theory as to why months of rioting, violence, and destruction wasn't met with greater resistance from police and the national guard.

Some of these places don't just allow, their mayors incite.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Well, I'm obviously not only talking about what is good for Cubo de Sangre here. But life on your private island sounds like it is nice and cozy.

Wish it were private. I'm no Zuckerberg.

I think the argument about 'Democrat cities' is a silly one. Most highly populated urban cities are Democrat jurisdictions. Highly populated areas tend to have bigger problems when it comes to poverty and crime. I don't see what political gain there would be in allowing riots when there are better solutions that existed....like actually addressing some of the demands of the protest. Incompetence , lack of leadership, and a disconnect from the public are more likely explanations.
This was also the year of COVID, lockdowns, massive protests and counter protests, and big bad Trump was still in office. I think it is more likely that leadership didnt' want to be the one to light the powder keg, and chose to do what Democrats usually do, and that's a whole lot of nothing and virtue signaling. That being said, it's not like this was a simple problem to solve. More police and national guard could've blown this up even more than it already did.

So you typed out a paragraph of don't blame the government, after insisting we blame the government?

Poor babies have a tough job doing the most important thing government is asked to do (i.e. keep order). Let's let 'em off the hook for failing, while also complaining the good people step up and preserve order when the taxpayers don't get what they're paying for?

Seems like you're playing both sides of the fence. Or all over the place with your arguments. Or something.

But all that aside, I want you to acknowledge that under the law that age 17 is fighting age in America.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

No it isn't. Him being five months older magically changes everything that was happening throughout the country? Are you able to acknowledge the 17 is fighting age? It's literally encoded in US law. Do you even unorganized militia, bro?

If you don't like some shit going down that's cool, but this mantra of muh "17 year old" is worthless.

It is a problem to me. I am stating my opinion. As I've said, I'm not talking about the law.

You keep ignoring the other part here for some reason.
About being in an actual organization that trains you to do something. One that you are accountable to and gives you orders...like the military.
That is different from random 17 year old larping.

I also said it is a problem for ANYONE of any age to go into a volatile area with a gun larping as a cop or a medic, but it is ESPECIALLY so if you are a minor. This isnt just about Rittenhouse. In general, for WHATEVER cause, I would not want 17 year olds walking around protests with rifles. If that makes me crazy, then call me crazy.
This circles back to "the necessity of local people "having to" take arms to protect the community", instead of addressing why we are letting the people we pay to keep order not keep order so that 17 year olds don't have to drive to some powder keg to play cop.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You keep ignoring the other part here for some reason.
About being in an actual organization that trains you to do something.

I didn't ignore that at all. Pretty sure you ignored me asking what specific "training" was required for this situation (i.e. standing guard, dissuading arson, and putting out fires as need be).

This circles back to "the necessity of local people "having to" take arms to protect the community", instead of addressing why we are letting the people we pay to keep order not keep order so that 17 year olds don't have to drive to some powder keg to play cop.

And around in circles we go. The fact is the government did not do its job. Good people stepped up and criminal scum were abated. You either have a problem with people protecting themselves and what's theirs's here or your don't. If you do then you're welcome to argue that. I think that's a morally bankrupt position, personally. If you don't then you should be applauding those with the stones (like Kyle) to take a stand for what's right. Because it's absolutely ludicrous to think any sort of political action on the part of Joe Citizen was going to keep his business from getting torched during those four nights of lawlessness.

Here's the deal. The rioters made it volatile. You're saying don't go there with the ability to fight back against them. You're basically saying let the rioters win. God forbit they be confronted, yeah?

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Wish it were private. I'm no Zuckerberg.



So you typed out a paragraph of don't blame the government, after insisting we blame the government?

Poor babies have a tough job doing the most important thing government is asked to do (i.e. keep order). Let's let 'em off the hook for failing, while also complaining the good people step up and preserve order when the taxpayers don't get what they're paying for?

Seems like you're playing both sides of the fence. Or all over the place with your arguments. Or something.

But all that aside, I want you to acknowledge that under the law that age 17 is fighting age in America.

It seems like you can only see things in black and white.
Who said anything about letting anyone off the hook?

What I am saying is, is that the problem is complicated. Your focus seems to be more on who is to blame instead of targeting and addressing the problem.
The point of the first paragraph was that this isn't a matter of a "Democrat" or "Republican" problem. Larger , urban cities are more prone to have these problems...especially in a country like ours with the history that we have, poor social safety net, and wealth gap. That doesn't mean I don't think they are in an impossible situation, or that they don't have blame.
If you and others put this same energy towards holding the government accountable, they'd be held accountable. But you want to skip that step and go straight to 'the good people that step up and preserve order". You let the government off the hook by focusing all of your energy on BLM and dead sex offenders.

Drive young Rittenhouse to a local recruiter and take his ASVAB and we'll be in agreement.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What I am saying is, is that the problem is complicated. Your focus seems to be more on who is to blame instead of targeting and addressing the problem.

Must have missed where you said what realistic course of action the business owners should have taken to prevent their shit getting torched.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Drive young Rittenhouse to a local recruiter and take his ASVAB and we'll be in agreement.

And again, you pretend that would have helped when we all say the Guard do jack and shit. Had he been enlisted he'd have been ordered to do nothing. Good thing he didn't, since good people needed other good people to step up where the government failed.

Tell me what training he needed that he didn't have. Please be specific.

Pretty sure I'm able to defend my home without some magically government whatever you imagine. Should I learn how to march and know a bunch of acronyms first?

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I didn't ignore that at all. Pretty sure you ignored me asking what specific "training" was required for this situation (i.e. standing guard, dissuading arson, and putting out fires as need be).



And around in circles we go. The fact is the government did not do its job. Good people stepped up and criminal scum were abated. You either have a problem with people protecting themselves and what's theirs's here or your don't. If you do then you're welcome to argue that. I think that's a morally bankrupt position, personally. If you don't then you should be applauding those with the stones (like Kyle) to take a stand for what's right. Because it's absolutely ludicrous to think any sort of political action on the part of Joe Citizen was going to keep his business from getting torched during those four nights of lawlessness.

Here's the deal. The rioters made it volatile. You're saying don't go there with the ability to fight back against them. You're basically saying let the rioters win. God forbit they be confronted, yeah?

What specific "training" should a 17 year old have to larp as a militia man, rifle in hand, in a volatile area of protesting and riots?
I guess Wood Shop and half a semester of Spanish is enough.

And around we go. I don't see this as black and white. Kyle is your hero, cool. I didn't call him a demon.
But there's more parts to this that actually matter, and this good/evil approach won't do jackshit to changing anything.
But hey, i'ts been fun. But it's been enough politics for me for this evening.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What specific "training" should a 17 year old have to larp as a militia man, rifle in hand, in a volatile area of protesting and riots?
I guess Wood Shop and half a semester of Spanish is enough.

You're making a claim you can't back up. You pretend it's far more complicated than it is to push your narrative. But since you can't articulate anything that remotely substantiates it you pretend it's so obvious that you're above it all. So right back at you.

But there's more parts to this that actually matter, and this good/evil approach won't do jackshit to changing anything.

It did, actually. Rioting tapered off dramatically after Kenosha. You keep talking about appealing to government for change and refuse to state what that looks like, same as your inability to articulate muh training.

Once you work some energy back up let us know what business owners could have done in those few days to get the state and local officials to do their fucking job, such that good people with 2A rights didn't need to step up and fill the void.

 

[ShadowRun]

What an idiot can her and AOC go away ..

 

[GearSolidMetal]

What an idiot can her and AOC go away ..

She's not an idiot. She knows exactly what she's doing.

She's a troll, a very effective troll at pissing leftists off.