Precisely.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Precisely.
And once again, WHERE are his options? Running back towards the guy chasing him, or run through some trucks into a mob of people of unknown intent which have shown violence and vandalism throughout the night.
Exactly WHERE was he supposed to go, pull up the video and draw on it if it helps make your point.
Soldato
The judge won't give a statement on the mis-trial the defence asked for till after the verdict.
Then just provide clarification, it's not rocket science. You seem to be making some rather silly point about fistfights in clubs that is of little relevance, the poster you were engaging with doesn't seem to see the relevance either and has potined it out too so it's hardly just me.
LOL but in this case it's more like "deflection Jono" striking again than any "dowie hole", you're unable to simply answer straight questions or address criticism, you just deflect or go into attack the poster mode. You might want to dismiss criticism as a "dowie hole" in SC if it's me responding to multiple people but in this instance, it certainly isn't, plenty of people are objecting to your arguments and the issue isn't me replying it's you simply avoiding the criticism.
Why not just stick to the topic of the thread and just answer, either of us can call names or throw around ad hominems etc.. it's not too constructive - you think a fist fight comparison is relevant why exactly?
I'm sorry but the argument that he couldn't run past or approach anyone else in the vicinity is rather silly.
He went there of his own accord, and now you are telling me that he would have felt incredibly threatened (to the point of his life being threatened) being anywhere near the rioters?
Essentially Jono and Colonel_Klinck don't have sufficient levels of cognition to get around the fact that people can legally open carry rifles in many places in the US.
Once you understand this you should know that a person who attacks another person armed with a firearm (be they a police officer or a member of the public) is at high risk of being shot because otherwise they run the risk of losing their own gun and having it used against them.
This is very different to the typical drunken fist fight outside the Rose and Crown on a Friday night.
The scenario would also be no different if you tried to violently attack an isolated UK armed police officer by charging at them and making moves that looked like you were going to try and snatch their gun. Especially if you had earlier made threats to kill any isolated police officer you came across.
In this scenario you would run a considerable risk that the officer would, justifiably, use their gun on you before you had the chance to make physical contact to stand a chance to wrestle the gun from them.
Once you understand this you should know that a person who attacks another person armed with a firearm (be they a police officer or a member of the public) is at high risk of being shot because otherwise they run the risk of losing their own gun and having it used against them.
This is very different to the typical drunken fist fight outside the Rose and Crown on a Friday night.
The scenario would also be no different if you tried to violently attack an isolated UK armed police officer by charging at them and making moves that looked like you were going to try and snatch their gun. Especially if you had earlier made threats to kill any isolated police officer you came across.
In this scenario you would run a considerable risk that the officer would, justifiably, use their gun on you before you had the chance to make physical contact to stand a chance to wrestle the gun from them.
No one has claimed he needed an AR-15 to extinguish a fire, he's only claimed he needed the AR-15 for self-defence and that he'd rather have had a pistol. You're addressing a non-argument.
You clearly do not have the cognition to understand the point being made then.
Soldato
You did know he was with a group of people who also had guns out.
They got split up.
Looks to me you haven't watched the trial.
Then provide clarification on it... posting all these nonreplies of "you don't understand" to people doesn't add anything, it just deflects (again). Make the argument... explain it to people like they're 5 if you like... it's better than going round and round and round keeping to vague points/assertions that seem to have obvious flaws to them.
Stuff that might seem obvious to you in your head, isn't always apparent to everyone else, if people aren't clear where you're going with an argument then just provide clarification instead of this repeated song and dance you perform almost every time.
Considering there is photographic and video evidence to support the fire extinguisher line, sure, I'll happily join the defence to point out simple facts.
Ah the old 'you so macho you must be gay' routine?
Soldato
I don't think thats the case for most Americans, take Florida for example they don't have open carry laws so people conceal carry, which is safer I think for reasons which I wont go in to here.
I think Jono and klink are saying that your typical rioter has the same cognitive function as a ****** up yob. I agree
JBuk wrote:
I then gave an example of how countless people find themselves in these situations (being chased,threatened, perhaps pushed, punched or kicked) and don't end up killing someone/using deadly force 99.99% of the time. They dont "ask for a timeout then resume once they have done their risk assessment" do they? No, they also make decisions in the heat of the moment, but almost all of the time it is NOT to kill the other person.
Essentially I am saying they can't get around the fact that open carry of semi automatic rifles is legal in many part of the US.
Once you are at this and prospect of physical conflict becomes much more fraught with danger as the person who may legally be carrying the gun has some very good reasons not to allow a situation to arise where they may have the weapon taken from them.
It doesn't do to say the person carrying the gun is culpable for the reaction they may have to have to any attack on them any more then it would do to say the woman in a dress out at night is culpable for the stranger rapist that attacks her because she 'provoked' him.
After all both may otherwise be lawfully going about the business.
You just can't get around the block in your brain that in the "99.9% of examples you cite that one of the parties involved isn't carrying a semi automatic rifle and as such there is no comparison to be made.
Charge at a sole regular UK cop you have threatened to kill and you may get a baton strike or two and maybe a face full of CS for your stupidity.
Do the same to a sole armed cop and you may find yourself on the receiving end of a bullet or two.
It's not the cops fault in the second scenario that she or he was lawfully carrying a gun and had to react accordingly.
Except its not, when you have been separated from your group, are alone, and part of the mob has threatened you and started a confrontation, you cant reasonably know the intent or mindset of more of that mob. To suggest otherwise is absolutely foolish.
To suggest that someone is capable of that level of hindsight while you have a big dude chasing your ass down after threatening to kill you is even more absurd to the point I think youre just trolling rather than holding this as a legitimate point of view.
He was separated from his group. That can change the dynamic of safety dramatically.
But heres a picture none the less.
At best, his option was to run through the "thin" section, but this is said with hindsight, not in the heat of the moment with some angry dude chasing you down after threatening to kill you.
