3 ms·

> Like I said, I haven’t followed this You obviously, by your posts, don't know the facts of this case, so why are you weighing in the first place? > Do you t

> Like I said, I haven’t followed this You obviously, by your posts, don't know the facts of this case, so why are you weighing in the first place? > Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? The situation was already dangerous - people were looting and setting shit on fire. Rittenhouse had already put out one of those fires. And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? In fact, if the third guy had not brought a gun, he'd still have most of his bicep. > one with a huge weapon Stop calling it a "huge weapon". You sound ridiculous. It's a fucking AR-15. It's not a Howitzer.

ryantgtg 5y ago
Ah, I see where you're confused. I'm not weighing in about the case. This particular thread is about the neutrality of a reporter's initial story: > I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. I don't disagree with a level of neutrality (though it depends on the context - for example, the media has a tendency to go overly-neutral when describing "cars colliding with pedestrians"), but I was saying that further detail is valuable and attainable on-site. In this case, whether the shooter is, say, a business owner defending their business (such as the Korean shopowners perched on the roofs during the Rodney King riots), or a guy from out of town walking through the streets carrying - yes - a super visible weapon (aka a huge gun). Some commenters in this thread are also throwing things at me about the criminal past of the other people involved, which sounds to me like they're also having trouble following the thread (which again, is about the neutrality of initial reporting). > And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? I don't understand your logic. Are you pretending that I'm defending this third guy or something?

ryantgtg 5y ago

Ah, I see where you're confused. I'm not weighing in about the case. This particular thread is about the neutrality of a reporter's initial story: > I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. I don't disagree with a level of neutrality (though it depends on the context - for example, the media has a tendency to go overly-neutral when describing "cars colliding with pedestrians"), but I was saying that further detail is valuable and attainable on-site. In this case, whether the shooter is, say, a business owner defending their business (such as the Korean shopowners perched on the roofs during the Rodney King riots), or a guy from out of town walking through the streets carrying - yes - a super visible weapon (aka a huge gun). Some commenters in this thread are also throwing things at me about the criminal past of the other people involved, which sounds to me like they're also having trouble following the thread (which again, is about the neutrality of initial reporting). > And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? I don't understand your logic. Are you pretending that I'm defending this third guy or something?