10 ms·

Kyle is a fool but if every one of those folks would have just left Kyle alone instead of attacking him they’d be alive.

jacquesm 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- esyir 5y ago
  Said dead people should also not have been there. But they didn't. They were there, he was there, but they made the even worse decision to attack him. At that point, self defense is justifiable. Any argument that Rittenhouse should not have been there to begin with also similarly applies to the dead. That they instigated the incident is the reason we call it self defense, as compared to the irrelevant school shooter analogy.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I totally agree with that. But nobody in their right mind feels that defending a bunch of cars is worth human lives.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      Property rights of any civilized country disagrees.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      It’s not a “bunch of cars.” It’s the livelihoods of a couple of immigrants who did nothing to deserve having their business destroyed. It’s not just some buildings. It’s people’s community. Their businesses, their places of recreation, their community gathering places. That built environment was the labor of many people who left more to their kids than they started with. Property is the difference between Bangladesh and America. Many of these communities never rebound after riots like this. Destroying city blocks like this is profoundly anti-social and damaging to the people who live there.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Yes, you're right, death penalty right there! The difference between Bangladesh and America is a bit more than just property, and the difference between either and some other places in the world is that they are both extremes.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        Shooting people is also profoundly anti social and damaging to the people shot, but you don't seem to criticize Kyle much.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      They didn't lose their lives for destroying cars. They lost them for attacking Rittenhouse.
    - esyir 5y ago
      They made that decision themselves. This isn't a case where they attacked him and then he pulled out a pistol and shot them. This was open carry with a rifle. To answer the point you made, they made the decision to attack a clearly armed man and thus evaluated that attacking those cars was worth their own lives.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  He was protecting a car lot. The police blocked off that area and he ended up in the street heading to the other car lot. Someone else shot a gun and someone thought it was him and tried to take his gun. Others attacked him and pulled a gun on him. I don't understand gun culture but I imagine if you are carrying a gun and someone is attacking you for it your life may depend on keeping it.
- rayiner 5y ago
  The really correct answer is that the police don’t allow rioters to burn down a city for two days so that idiot kids don’t feel the need to take the law into their own hands.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Two wrongs etc. Taking the law into your own hands just breeds more violence.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      He brought first aid for the protestors, was cleaning up graffiti and also was ready to defend himself with a weapon if he needed.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        He'll be a Saint next!
        GhettoComputers 5y ago
        If someone attacked a medic openly carrying a gun and the medic defend themselves against several assailants, do you blame the medic?
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      > Taking the law into your own hands just breeds more violence. As a nice but nerdy kid who got in trouble at school for half a decade or while teachers turned a blind eye I'm not so sure. The problems immediately stopped once I stood up and used necessary force to make me a less attractive target. Even the bully in question seemed to get something valuable out of it. Edited to remove as many personal details as possible while keeping the story intact.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        I'm going to assume you didn't kill anybody. I've lived through that exact same thing, but I definitely wouldn't have shot people or endangered their lives. That's beyond insane.

jacquesm 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
esyir 5y ago
Said dead people should also not have been there. But they didn't. They were there, he was there, but they made the even worse decision to attack him. At that point, self defense is justifiable. Any argument that Rittenhouse should not have been there to begin with also similarly applies to the dead. That they instigated the incident is the reason we call it self defense, as compared to the irrelevant school shooter analogy.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I totally agree with that. But nobody in their right mind feels that defending a bunch of cars is worth human lives.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Property rights of any civilized country disagrees.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    It’s not a “bunch of cars.” It’s the livelihoods of a couple of immigrants who did nothing to deserve having their business destroyed. It’s not just some buildings. It’s people’s community. Their businesses, their places of recreation, their community gathering places. That built environment was the labor of many people who left more to their kids than they started with. Property is the difference between Bangladesh and America. Many of these communities never rebound after riots like this. Destroying city blocks like this is profoundly anti-social and damaging to the people who live there.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Yes, you're right, death penalty right there! The difference between Bangladesh and America is a bit more than just property, and the difference between either and some other places in the world is that they are both extremes.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Shooting people is also profoundly anti social and damaging to the people shot, but you don't seem to criticize Kyle much.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    They didn't lose their lives for destroying cars. They lost them for attacking Rittenhouse.
  - esyir 5y ago
    They made that decision themselves. This isn't a case where they attacked him and then he pulled out a pistol and shot them. This was open carry with a rifle. To answer the point you made, they made the decision to attack a clearly armed man and thus evaluated that attacking those cars was worth their own lives.
ipaddr 5y ago
He was protecting a car lot. The police blocked off that area and he ended up in the street heading to the other car lot. Someone else shot a gun and someone thought it was him and tried to take his gun. Others attacked him and pulled a gun on him. I don't understand gun culture but I imagine if you are carrying a gun and someone is attacking you for it your life may depend on keeping it.
rayiner 5y ago
The really correct answer is that the police don’t allow rioters to burn down a city for two days so that idiot kids don’t feel the need to take the law into their own hands.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Two wrongs etc. Taking the law into your own hands just breeds more violence.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    He brought first aid for the protestors, was cleaning up graffiti and also was ready to defend himself with a weapon if he needed.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      He'll be a Saint next!
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        If someone attacked a medic openly carrying a gun and the medic defend themselves against several assailants, do you blame the medic?
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    > Taking the law into your own hands just breeds more violence. As a nice but nerdy kid who got in trouble at school for half a decade or while teachers turned a blind eye I'm not so sure. The problems immediately stopped once I stood up and used necessary force to make me a less attractive target. Even the bully in question seemed to get something valuable out of it. Edited to remove as many personal details as possible while keeping the story intact.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      I'm going to assume you didn't kill anybody. I've lived through that exact same thing, but I definitely wouldn't have shot people or endangered their lives. That's beyond insane.