8 ms·

I 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, dre

by RC_ITR 5y ago

I 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 ago
For 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 ago
  Legalism and moralism are independent concepts.
- vkou 5y ago
  So, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    If 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?
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      In case you weren't aware: Active shooter seems to have a defined meaning and the courts decided he was not. The rest of my comment assumes you were not aware of this and just meant someone who just shot someone else. Now: legally it seems in Wisconsin one doesn't have the right to follow after someone and pull a gun on them when they aren't threatening anyone. One does however has a right to shoot if someone attacks with deadly force. If this is a good law or not I'll not discuss - personally I'd prefer if police rounded up and judges handed out some generous penalties to the rioters. morally, one guy had gone around helping put out fires in a poor neighbourhood targeted by riot tourism while also being friendly towards those as far as possible The others were violent rioters enjoying an opportunity to destroy innocent peoples livelihoods under the cover of supporting the very people they were attacking.
      - vkou 5y ago
        You seem to be missing that when you may be in an active shooter situation, you can't wait for a court to decide whether it is, or isn't one. Rittenhouse felt threatened, but for some reason, didn't wait for a court to make a determination. The people he shot also felt threatened. And for good reason, given that he killed two of them, in two separate incidents. If he has the moral right to use lethal force to defend himself against a threat to his person, with imperfect information, without waiting a year for a court to split hairs over who was and was not at fault, so do they. He is incredibly lucky that Grosskreutz gave the question of killing a man more thought than he did.
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        The relevant legal standard is not “felt threatened”, but that a person must have a reasonable grounds (by objective standards of a reasonable person, not by subjective standards of threat, which might be completely unreasonable) to believe, and in fact believe that there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Since Rittenhouse was quite apparently running away, and Grossenkreutz was pursuing him, in no way can a reasonable conclude that Rittenhouse was an imminent threat to Grossenkreutz — if he didn’t pursue him, he’d be completely safe.
oh_sigh 5y ago
Except Kyle wasn't an "active shooter". He shot one person who was attacking him, and then ran away while being chased by a mob. That isn't an active shooter.
hasdf 5y ago
Gaige is a convicted felon who was illegally armed with a gun and drove to Kenosha to riot. It is hard to understand how you label him the good guy in this scenario.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  He didn’t pull the trigger and kill anyone. He’s a chaotic good, sure. Rittenhouse is lawful evil. That’s all.
  - not_really 5y ago
    I wouldn't refer to someone charged with a DUI, or illegally conceal-carrying a pistol, as being "chaotic good".
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      (He's a chaotic) (good, sure)
      - bigwavedave 5y ago
        What? "Chaotic good" and "lawful evil" are common terms. Why are you trying to split up the grandparent post's wording in a way they very obviously didn't intend?
        RC_ITR 5y ago
        You really don't understand the split then, huh? Break the law, but don't harm anyone = Chaotic. Help people (be a medic) = Good. I mean, just because you don't like someone doesn't make them bad.
        bigwavedave 5y ago
        Except they're not supposed to be split. Just like splitting "therapist" into "the rapist" doesn't capture the intended meaning of the thing, neither does splitting "chaotic good" into "chaotic" and "good" capture the intended meaning. Someone of chaotic good alignment is one who "combined a good heart with a free spirit. These characters acted as their own conscience directed with little regard for the expectations of others. They were often kind, benevolent, and strong individualists who were hostile to the claims of rules, regulations and social order.[1]" I don't give two figs about which horse you have in this race- splitting a phrase to distort the intended meaning is bad faith, full stop. That's all I came to say. But thanks for being condescending in the defense of your fallacious claim, it gave me a good chuckle. [1] Player's handbook v 3.5, page 105. Draws from version 1, 2, 3.x, and influences v 5. Essentially, everything but 4, which is largely regarded as a version to be swept quietly under the rug.
mannerheim 5y ago
Rittenhouse wasn't an 'active shooter' by any stretch of the definition of the word. Further, Grosskreutz knew that Rittenhouse wasn't one because he videod himself running after him asking where he was going, and Rittenhouse responded that he was going to the police. And yes, pointing a gun at someone is threatening their life, which makes shooting them self-defence.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. Is your argument that he was passive or that guns don’t shoot?
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    The argument is that he was going to turn himself in. That might be what you meant by passive.
    - RC_ITR 5y ago
      Sure, but we take teenagers (who just shot someone and are RUNNING away) at their word now? And if you don't, you're justified in being shot while pursuing him?
      - mannerheim 5y ago
        You're justified in being shot if you try to physically attack them by repeatedly hitting them in the head and then trying to grab their gun, yes.
        RC_ITR 5y ago
        As far as everyone knew, Rittenhouse was a shooter (that’s a risk you run carrying a rifle) What were they supposed to do, let him flee?
        5y ago

by RC_ITR 5y ago

xyzzyz 5y ago

For 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 ago
Legalism and moralism are independent concepts.
vkou 5y ago
So, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  If 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?
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    In case you weren't aware: Active shooter seems to have a defined meaning and the courts decided he was not. The rest of my comment assumes you were not aware of this and just meant someone who just shot someone else. Now: legally it seems in Wisconsin one doesn't have the right to follow after someone and pull a gun on them when they aren't threatening anyone. One does however has a right to shoot if someone attacks with deadly force. If this is a good law or not I'll not discuss - personally I'd prefer if police rounded up and judges handed out some generous penalties to the rioters. morally, one guy had gone around helping put out fires in a poor neighbourhood targeted by riot tourism while also being friendly towards those as far as possible The others were violent rioters enjoying an opportunity to destroy innocent peoples livelihoods under the cover of supporting the very people they were attacking.
    - vkou 5y ago
      You seem to be missing that when you may be in an active shooter situation, you can't wait for a court to decide whether it is, or isn't one. Rittenhouse felt threatened, but for some reason, didn't wait for a court to make a determination. The people he shot also felt threatened. And for good reason, given that he killed two of them, in two separate incidents. If he has the moral right to use lethal force to defend himself against a threat to his person, with imperfect information, without waiting a year for a court to split hairs over who was and was not at fault, so do they. He is incredibly lucky that Grosskreutz gave the question of killing a man more thought than he did.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        The relevant legal standard is not “felt threatened”, but that a person must have a reasonable grounds (by objective standards of a reasonable person, not by subjective standards of threat, which might be completely unreasonable) to believe, and in fact believe that there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Since Rittenhouse was quite apparently running away, and Grossenkreutz was pursuing him, in no way can a reasonable conclude that Rittenhouse was an imminent threat to Grossenkreutz — if he didn’t pursue him, he’d be completely safe.

oh_sigh 5y ago

Except Kyle wasn't an "active shooter". He shot one person who was attacking him, and then ran away while being chased by a mob. That isn't an active shooter.

hasdf 5y ago

Gaige is a convicted felon who was illegally armed with a gun and drove to Kenosha to riot. It is hard to understand how you label him the good guy in this scenario.

RC_ITR 5y ago
He didn’t pull the trigger and kill anyone. He’s a chaotic good, sure. Rittenhouse is lawful evil. That’s all.
- not_really 5y ago
  I wouldn't refer to someone charged with a DUI, or illegally conceal-carrying a pistol, as being "chaotic good".
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    (He's a chaotic) (good, sure)
    - bigwavedave 5y ago
      What? "Chaotic good" and "lawful evil" are common terms. Why are you trying to split up the grandparent post's wording in a way they very obviously didn't intend?
      - RC_ITR 5y ago
        You really don't understand the split then, huh? Break the law, but don't harm anyone = Chaotic. Help people (be a medic) = Good. I mean, just because you don't like someone doesn't make them bad.
        bigwavedave 5y ago
        Except they're not supposed to be split. Just like splitting "therapist" into "the rapist" doesn't capture the intended meaning of the thing, neither does splitting "chaotic good" into "chaotic" and "good" capture the intended meaning. Someone of chaotic good alignment is one who "combined a good heart with a free spirit. These characters acted as their own conscience directed with little regard for the expectations of others. They were often kind, benevolent, and strong individualists who were hostile to the claims of rules, regulations and social order.[1]" I don't give two figs about which horse you have in this race- splitting a phrase to distort the intended meaning is bad faith, full stop. That's all I came to say. But thanks for being condescending in the defense of your fallacious claim, it gave me a good chuckle. [1] Player's handbook v 3.5, page 105. Draws from version 1, 2, 3.x, and influences v 5. Essentially, everything but 4, which is largely regarded as a version to be swept quietly under the rug.

mannerheim 5y ago

Rittenhouse wasn't an 'active shooter' by any stretch of the definition of the word. Further, Grosskreutz knew that Rittenhouse wasn't one because he videod himself running after him asking where he was going, and Rittenhouse responded that he was going to the police. And yes, pointing a gun at someone is threatening their life, which makes shooting them self-defence.

RC_ITR 5y ago
Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. Is your argument that he was passive or that guns don’t shoot?
- 1123581321 5y ago
  The argument is that he was going to turn himself in. That might be what you meant by passive.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    Sure, but we take teenagers (who just shot someone and are RUNNING away) at their word now? And if you don't, you're justified in being shot while pursuing him?
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      You're justified in being shot if you try to physically attack them by repeatedly hitting them in the head and then trying to grab their gun, yes.
      - RC_ITR 5y ago
        As far as everyone knew, Rittenhouse was a shooter (that’s a risk you run carrying a rifle) What were they supposed to do, let him flee?
        5y ago