4 ms·

>Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. No he didn't. He had just defended himself against two assailants, while trying to flee. He was never, at any p

by HNTA_1 5y ago

>Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people. No he didn't. He had just defended himself against two assailants, while trying to flee. He was never, at any point in time, an "active shooter". An "active shooter" is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."[0] He had a pattern of selection. Kyle shot and neutralized those who were trying to kill him (or cause grievious bodily harm). That is, by definition, self-defense, not an "active shooter" event. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.p... QED.

RC_ITR 5y ago
Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter is bullied and hit in a fight. He shoots bully dead and starts running. He then shoots two people tackling him. Is he not an active shooter? Why are you doing such mental gymnastics to lionize this kid? You can debate over whether he should go to jail or not, but the reality is he extra-judicially killed 2 people. Doesn't that make you feel weird to defend that, even if you disagree politically with his victims?
- HNTA_1 5y ago
  >Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Proof that they didn't think he was a threat, not an active shooter. He was trying to flee a rioting mob that attempted to kill him. >Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter And there it is, your mask fell off. Freudian slip. You're already aligning him with a "school shooter" even though the scenario you describe is anything but that. > School shooter is bullied and hit in a fight. You mean a victim is bullied almost to death and feared for his life. So he... >shoots bully dead and starts running. Self-defends himself against a violent threat and flees the site of where he was almost bullied to death. > He then shoots two people tackling him. He then shoots two more bullies who also try to tackle and beat him to death. All of these instances are self-defense. >Is he not an active shooter? According to the definition used by the federal government, absolutely not. You don't get to magically redefine terms because the new definition is better for your narrative. >Why are you doing such mental gymnastics to lionize this kid? Projection much? Why are you doing such self-delusion to lionize this kid? By "mental gymnastics" you mean "what a jury decided was the truth after hours of testimony, footage, and deliberations." Facts, evidence, testimony, etc. that are not good for your narrative are not "mental gymnastics". > You can debate over whether he should go to jail or not Which is exactly what happened in court. >not, but the reality is he extra-judicially killed 2 people. There's that delusion again. It's only "reality" if you want to replace what actually happened with some narrative safe delusion. He was within the confines of the law when he legally defended himself. That is the complete opposite of "extrajudicial". Here you are again, attempting to redefine terms and words to delusionally fit a narrative. >Doesn't that make you feel weird to defend that Does upholding and defending the law and a verdict decided by a jury make me feel weird? No. If it makes you feel weird, maybe it's because the facts, law, and reality are causing you mental strife. Seek help. >even if you disagree politically with his victims? What his assailants' political beliefs are is immaterial.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    Damn. I’ve never been more scared by a comment in my life. Please dont shoot anyone. I can make the promise I won’t.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      We get that you're upset about your fantasies about an 18-year-old kid getting sodomised in prison for the rest of his life not becoming a reality, but that's not an excuse for all these bad faith comments.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - HNTA_2 5y ago
      >Damn. I’ve never been more scared by a comment in my life. LiTeRaLlY sHaKiNg! Your White fragility is here on full display. Scared because your delusional narrative got shatter. >Please dont shoot anyone. Please don't try to attack and kill people. Someone may shoot you in self-defense.

by HNTA_1 5y ago

RC_ITR 5y ago

Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter is bullied and hit in a fight. He shoots bully dead and starts running. He then shoots two people tackling him. Is he not an active shooter? Why are you doing such mental gymnastics to lionize this kid? You can debate over whether he should go to jail or not, but the reality is he extra-judicially killed 2 people. Doesn't that make you feel weird to defend that, even if you disagree politically with his victims?

HNTA_1 5y ago
>Trying to flee a crowd that attempted to detain him for shooting someone. Proof that they didn't think he was a threat, not an active shooter. He was trying to flee a rioting mob that attempted to kill him. >Let's play hypothetical here. School shooter And there it is, your mask fell off. Freudian slip. You're already aligning him with a "school shooter" even though the scenario you describe is anything but that. > School shooter is bullied and hit in a fight. You mean a victim is bullied almost to death and feared for his life. So he... >shoots bully dead and starts running. Self-defends himself against a violent threat and flees the site of where he was almost bullied to death. > He then shoots two people tackling him. He then shoots two more bullies who also try to tackle and beat him to death. All of these instances are self-defense. >Is he not an active shooter? According to the definition used by the federal government, absolutely not. You don't get to magically redefine terms because the new definition is better for your narrative. >Why are you doing such mental gymnastics to lionize this kid? Projection much? Why are you doing such self-delusion to lionize this kid? By "mental gymnastics" you mean "what a jury decided was the truth after hours of testimony, footage, and deliberations." Facts, evidence, testimony, etc. that are not good for your narrative are not "mental gymnastics". > You can debate over whether he should go to jail or not Which is exactly what happened in court. >not, but the reality is he extra-judicially killed 2 people. There's that delusion again. It's only "reality" if you want to replace what actually happened with some narrative safe delusion. He was within the confines of the law when he legally defended himself. That is the complete opposite of "extrajudicial". Here you are again, attempting to redefine terms and words to delusionally fit a narrative. >Doesn't that make you feel weird to defend that Does upholding and defending the law and a verdict decided by a jury make me feel weird? No. If it makes you feel weird, maybe it's because the facts, law, and reality are causing you mental strife. Seek help. >even if you disagree politically with his victims? What his assailants' political beliefs are is immaterial.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  Damn. I’ve never been more scared by a comment in my life. Please dont shoot anyone. I can make the promise I won’t.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    We get that you're upset about your fantasies about an 18-year-old kid getting sodomised in prison for the rest of his life not becoming a reality, but that's not an excuse for all these bad faith comments.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - HNTA_2 5y ago
    >Damn. I’ve never been more scared by a comment in my life. LiTeRaLlY sHaKiNg! Your White fragility is here on full display. Scared because your delusional narrative got shatter. >Please dont shoot anyone. Please don't try to attack and kill people. Someone may shoot you in self-defense.