8 ms·
Sorry, self defense is a right no matter what isle of the political spectrum you land on. Arguing otherwise here, means you A) didn't follow the case or B) are
by urda 5y ago
Sorry, self defense is a right no matter what isle of the political spectrum you land on. Arguing otherwise here, means you A) didn't follow the case or B) are arguing in bad faith.
BOTH of these options do not make for a good look on yourself.
- dreyfan 5y agoSo, next time a police officer draws a weapon on someone, and that someone lawfully exercises their right to self-defense while exercising their right to bear arms, we're all 100% on the same page that it's okay, yeah?
- urda 5y agohttps://weartv.com/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend https://weartv.com/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shoot... Literally yes? Can you drop the strawman and whataboutism in an attempt to derail things and maybe focus on the discussion at hand?
- dreyfan 5y agoHow the fuck is this a strawman? It's a massive courtcase that says it's okay to show up to places where you probably shouldn't have a gun, and if anyone else feels threatened and attempts to stop you, you're 100% okay to murder them to protect yourself.
- urda 5y ago> How the fuck is this a strawman? Annnnnd we're done here. You never wanted a discussion you just thought you had a "got them" moment, which never occurred. You can be civil when you get called out in the future thanks.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoYeah. That actually happened recently in Minneapolis, a story that got amazingly little media coverage. Cops in an unmarked van were driving around shooting rubber bullets and people. Dude things they're trying to kill him, so he shoots back. After he realizes theyre cops, he drops his gun and the officers beat the shit out of him. Prosecutors tried to get him to plea down, but he fought the case and was declared not guilty.
- RC_ITR 5y agoI always wonder where the 'we need good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns' go when they're talking about Gaige. He saw Kyle, an active shooter, drew on him to get him to stop shooting people, and so Kyle just gets to shoot him? EDIT: This flamewar is not worth it (what did I expect in this thread?), but just please try to remember the lessons Batman tries to teach us about vigilante justice (it just encourages more crime by making 'justice' a personal endeavor subject to the follies of the individual).
- xyzzyz 5y agoFor starters, a prerequisite to be a “good guy with a gun”, you need to possess and carry that gun legally, which Gaige did not do. He was a convicted felon, ineligible to possess a gun, much less carry one concealed. However, he was not, and will not be prosecuted for that, almost as if gun control people were not interested in actually controlling illegally possessed guns.
- RC_ITR 5y agoLegalism and moralism are independent concepts.
- vkou 5y agoSo, if he was not a convicted felon, would shooting and killing Rittenhouse had been a more or less reasonable thing for him to do?
- skinkestek 5y agoI don't think that is the main problem. A person can do the right thing even if they so far has done the wrong thing. The problem here was that he was part of a violent destructive crowd and went even further than the rest of the crowd in attacking an innocent (as judged by the court) guy with a gun.
- vkou 5y agoIf you are in a crowd, and an active shooter just killed one or two people in front of you, are you going to sit around and wait for a court to determine that they were legally innocent? Or would you be completely within your moral rights to defend yourself from the shooter, by any means at your disposal?