Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[Jono8]

Do I?

Okay. In smallish words:

The right are defending Kyle, who took a gun designed specifically for a) killing people and b) 'looking cool' while doing so to a protest and ended up killing people, saying it was self-defence.

The very same right reckoned that Breonna Taylor's boyfriend firing at a wholly unannounced entry into his home - an entry which was in itself a complete screw-up - wasn't self-defence.

Please do let me know if you need that making simpler, or maybe translating into a different language. I am nothing if not accomodating

Don't expect reasonable or inquisitive debate in this thread.

Prepare for dowie to likely tangle up what you have said in nonsense that tries to manipulate what you originally said into something completely different.

 

[Jono8]

Oh, please.

What the hell else was it designed for then? Looking good next to your man-purse? Going well with your fancy-dan wildly expensive Ford truck where you spent the money on the interior and the paint rather than the engine and transmission? An objet d'art to go on a shelf?

What is it for if not for killing?

Indeed.

It literally was made for killing people, and he testified under oath that he got someone to buy that particular rifle for him because he thought it looked cool.

 

[Dis86]

Oh, please.

What the hell else was it designed for then? Looking good next to your man-purse? Going well with your fancy-dan wildly expensive Ford truck where you spent the money on the interior and the paint rather than the engine and transmission? An objet d'art to go on a shelf?

What is it for if not for killing?

Guns are made for a variety of purposes, just because you're ignorant of that doesn't change it. The gun in question is specifically designed to be less lethal as it's primary market is intended as law enforcement. It is semi-auto and designed specifically for the NATO 5.56 round. A round known for its limited lethality.

 

[OspreyO]

Do I?

Okay. In smallish words:

The right are defending Kyle, who took a gun designed specifically for a) killing people and b) 'looking cool' while doing so to a protest and ended up killing people, saying it was self-defence.

The very same right reckoned that Breonna Taylor's boyfriend firing at a wholly unannounced entry into his home - an entry which was in itself a complete screw-up - wasn't self-defence.

Please do let me know if you need that making simpler, or maybe translating into a different language. I am nothing if not accomodating

Please do and please be more condescending. When I asked a polite question.

You want to deflect into another complicated but almost entirely unrelated case with possible police racism and brutality where the "self defense" shooter seems to have had all the charges against him dismissed and ultimate there was a huge payout from the police, and other such.

Other than it's a shooting. It's seems completely irrelevant.

The argument that the only thing you can do with a rifle is kill people. Seems flawed. Since one of the people was wounded, and another wasn't hit at all. Which suggests even in this incident every time the rifle was used someone didn't die. Also his permit was for hunting. Hunting isn't killing people either. So it seems the rifle can be used for other things.

 

[JRS]

Please do and please be more condescending. When I asked a polite question.

Ooh, can I? Marvelous. Never been handed licence to do that before!

Guns are made for a variety of purposes, just because you're ignorant of that doesn't change it. The gun in question is specifically designed to be less lethal as it's primary market is intended as law enforcement. It is semi-auto and designed specifically for the NATO 5.56 round. A round known for its limited lethality.

Just for the avoidance of doubt here - you're claiming that Kyle Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 on the basis of the "limited lethality" that it would offer him when he pointed it at people and pulled the trigger?

 

[OspreyO]

Indeed.

It literally was made for killing people, and he testified under oath that he got someone to buy that particular rifle for him because he thought it looked cool.

It's made to be sold into their recreational market, features removed and adjusted to adhere to the legal restrictions of that market. As such it's different to military versions. So it be could be argued it's not made to kill people as it's primary purpose.

If you want to be pedantic about it.

 

[Dis86]

Just for the avoidance of doubt here - you're claiming that Kyle Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 on the basis of the "limited lethality" that it would offer him when he pointed it at people and pulled the trigger?

Prove otherwise.

And just for the avoidance of doubt you're now acknowledging that it wasn't specifically designed to kill people and you've changed your argument?

 

[OspreyO]

Ooh, can I? Marvelous. Never been handed licence to do that before!

Just for the avoidance of doubt here - you're claiming that Kyle Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 on the basis of the "limited lethality" that it would offer him when he pointed it at people and pulled the trigger?

Why he chose it is a different question.

Arguably he choose it because it was the coolest thing (in his mind) he could get a licence for. It was thus only thing he could bring with him.

 

[JRS]

And just for the avoidance of doubt you're now acknowledging that it wasn't specifically designed to kill people and you've changed your argument?

Where? Pretty sure I haven't.

 

[Dis86]

Just for the avoidance of doubt here - you're claiming that Kyle Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 on the basis of the "limited lethality" that it would offer him when he pointed it at people and pulled the trigger?

What the hell else was it designed for then?

What is it for if not for killing?

Where? Pretty sure I haven't.

There. see. Two different arguments. One about why he chose it, one about what it was designed for. Come on man, it's not that hard to stick to one point.

 

[OspreyO]

...
Just for the avoidance of doubt here - you're claiming that Kyle Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 on the basis of the "limited lethality" that it would offer him when he pointed it at people and pulled the trigger?

I think you'll have difficulty making the case he set out to kill someone intentionally by putting himself in the worst possible situation to achieve that. He was nearly disarmed numerous times. He had a rifle, he didn't need to let anyone get close him if that was the intention. It makes no sense as an argument.

 

[dowie]

I'm not entertaining your tedious BS anymore.

I've made my opinion quite clear. Its quite valid, and if you disagree, then thats fine. Many legal minds that know immensely more about it than you or I , are just as divided on the matter and it's a rather complex legal matter.

What a surprise. It's like you've got the attention span of a goldfish (this perhaps explains the basic factual errors made too, you simply haven't paid attention to the case), you see anything longer than a sentence and you call it gish gallop, word salad etc.. and when you're asked to back up an assertion with some reasoning/some sort of argument you back away from doing so - keeping things vague, deflect, sticking to assertions seems to be the go-to defence here to try to avoid criticism - you know full well I've asked about the assertion you made a few times now, you've either selectively ignored it or thrown in an excuse to avoid answering - the reason seems to be obvious, as with your previous deflections you can't actually back up the point.

 

[JRS]

@Dis86: once more, with feeling.

The gun in question is specifically designed to be less lethal as it's primary market is intended as law enforcement. It is semi-auto and designed specifically for the NATO 5.56 round. A round known for its limited lethality.

Just for the avoidance of doubt here - you're claiming that Kyle Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 on the basis of the "limited lethality" that it would offer him when he pointed it at people and pulled the trigger?

Put as simply as I can, I'm asking you if you think Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 because he believed that it had "limited lethality" rather than looking cool slung over his shoulder to go swanning around.

After all, if he really just wanted to kill people he could have taken a different gun, or a knife, or thrown bricks if he had enough strength. So are you seriously claiming that he picked an AR-15 on the basis of "limited lethality"?

 

[dowie]

I'm maintaining the point that Zaminksi firing a gun into the air somewhere nearby (out of sight to Kyle so he has no idea who actually made the bang) does not give Kyle an excuse to kill Rosenbaum.

This is hilarious, Kyle was (according to him) threatened with a gun, he's then pursued by both the person with the gun and another person (who ran), he then hears a gunshot... but he has no idea who actually made the bang?

LOL is this actually how you think? You've just been threatened with a gun, you run away from the person and then you have "no idea" where a gunshot behind you came from???

I mean sure, he doesn't know for sure but I think he can have a pretty good guess that the guy who just threatened him with a gun might well have just fired it!

Total cope, it's almost as bad as your previous downplaying attempt where you declared (falsely) that the gunshot had nothing to do with Kyle and took place in a different location.

 

[Dis86]

@Dis86: once more, with feeling.





Put as simply as I can, I'm asking you if you think Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 because he believed that it had "limited lethality" rather than looking cool slung over his shoulder to go swanning around.

After all, if he really just wanted to kill people he could have taken a different gun, or a knife, or thrown bricks if he had enough strength. So are you seriously claiming that he picked an AR-15 on the basis of "limited lethality"?

So you are changing the argument.

I don't know why he chose it, i'm not professing to know why he chose it.

You're the one that is claiming to know everything for certain.

 

[dowie]

@Dis86
Put as simply as I can, I'm asking you if you think Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 because he believed that it had "limited lethality" rather than looking cool slung over his shoulder to go swanning around.

Eh? This was testified to in court - he claimed he picked it because his friend had the same one, it looked cool and he thought it was legal for him to carry (he also mentioned a pistol would have been more useful, that he'd liked to have had a pistol but that would have been illegal for him to carry + the store they went to didn't have shotguns) - the law isn't clear and it seems Rittenhouse might have a point re: legality and long-barreled rifles.

He's also testified that he didn't intend to kill but to stop the people attacking him.

The right are defending Kyle, who took a gun designed specifically for a) killing people and b) 'looking cool' while doing so to a protest and ended up killing people, saying it was self-defence.

That's not quite true, the rifle is a civilian version and he bought it for target practice at his friend's firing range. He didn't attend the protest, he attended the locations of a small business the owners of which allegedly invited him and others to attend, the protest had finished, a riot had broken out past curfew/police trying to clear the streets and eventually, some rioters moved towards the location Kyle was at. It seems pretty clear he did act in self-defence, Jono8 will make some weak/vague assertions otherwise re: excessive force etc.. but won't or can't seem to argue why.

As a general point, it's perhaps better to try to address actual arguments that have been presented rather than declare that "the right" holds some position you assert + some other position on an unrelated matter etc..

 

[OspreyO]

I think most people struggle with the visuals of the AR-15 and can't see past that. Open Carry is another one that is hard to get your head around from our perspective.

 

[JRS]

I don't know why he chose it, i'm not professing to know why he chose it.

You're the one that is claiming to know everything for certain.

His testimony is that he chose it, in part, because it 'looked cool'.

Let's check the tapes...

The right are defending Kyle, who took a gun designed specifically for a) killing people and b) 'looking cool' while doing so to a protest and ended up killing people, saying it was self-defence.

You might agree or disagree with Kyle Rittenhouse that an AR-15 looks cool. I can't particularly judge it's coolness, since my idea of a 'cool' gun is one you can hunt your meal with. And you're not about to go after a rabbit, or pheasant, or deer with a semi-auto anything. But it's his sworn testimony in court that this coolness is one of the reasons he went with it, so we really could be forgiven for taking him at his word on this if we're going to accept his self-defence arguments.

Now back to the other part of that 'argument', such as it could be called anything so grand. What is a gun for? The answer, in the main, is causing whatever living thing you were pointing your gun at to cease living. Whether you were doing that hunting, euthanising a farm animal, in self-defence, in service of your country in a war, in defence of the law, whatever. You pointed the gun and pulled the trigger meaning to end a life.

So what gun fulfilled both requirements for Rittenhouse? The AR-15. Because any old gun can kill people. But only an AR-15 will do when you're an ammosexual **** who counts 'looking cool' as a major part of your choice.

And having dealt with that, let us return to where we started today - my linking of the tweet that poked fun at folks on the right saying Rittenhouse was just defending himself and should go free when those very same people quite often refuse to countenance the idea that Kenneth Walker, Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, was acting in self-defence when LMPD officers breached their home. My sole comment with this was:

Whataboutery, maybe. But a point:

Which bit would you like to take issue with? That it was whataboutery or that it was a point?

 

[Dis86]

Lol changing your argument again and neglecting the actual part of your argument that I showed to be false.

 

[JRS]

Lol changing your argument again and neglecting the actual part of your argument that I showed to be false.

...

What part of what argument?

The post you started this inane BS at said:

The right are defending Kyle, who took a gun designed specifically for a) killing people and b) 'looking cool'

To which you replied:

Prove it.

Now, I shall have to confess here that I did indeed make the assumption that you were asking me to prove that Rittenhouse picked the gun for those reasons and not that you were asking me to prove that the right were defending him. My bad. In my defence, you weren't that clear and I honestly thought it was pretty obvious even to those of us outside of America it was the right-leaning folks doing the defending and the liberal leftie commie pinko types leading the charge against. Perhaps I shouldn't have assumed that?

But, let us for a second assume that you were talking about the 'gun' bit and not the 'political persuasion' bit since that's where the thread headed. You quoted me saying, in part, that KR picked that gun because it looked cool. You want me to prove this. His own statement in court was that he picked it, in part, because it looked cool (even dowie is fine admitting that).

Now, I'm just a simple country fella an' I got problems of my own. But I cannot for the life of me figure out what your problem is here. Guns are used to kill people. He wanted one that, to him, looked cool. He went with an AR-15 on that basis.

If you're disputing that an AR-15 is specifically designed to kill and want me to prove that it was indeed designed to do just that, then why wouldn't you give me a straight answer when I asked:

Just for the avoidance of doubt here - you're claiming that Kyle Rittenhouse chose an AR-15 on the basis of the "limited lethality" that it would offer him when he pointed it at people and pulled the trigger?

Because it sure seemed for a moment like you were:

The gun in question is specifically designed to be less lethal as it's primary market is intended as law enforcement. It is semi-auto and designed specifically for the NATO 5.56 round. A round known for its limited lethality.

I mean...are you simply an AR-15 fan defending it to the ends of the Earth, or d'you genuinely believe that someone would pick one solely because they have "limited lethality"? 'cause I've gotta wonder about their usefulness if, as you seem to be saying, it's a gun that isn't very good at killing (though given how many lives have been ended by someone holding one it seems like it's pretty good at it).