By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ryuu96 said:

I'm very glad we actually live in countries which aren't this bloodthirsty, if you want that, there's a certain few countries that are backward enough where they shoot into crowds of protesters, at least you aren't saying they should be shot for destroying property so I suppose that's progress. I also want cops to be able to think under pressure, accurately assess a situation and the danger levels, their first response should not be to whip out the pistol and start blasting, especially not towards a damn fist fight, Lol, might as well just let the army police America with that logic.

Of course more people die from being physically hit than being shot because way more people get physically hit than shot, Lol. That's not what we're talking about though, we're comparing them on an individual basis from a cops view, it is much easier to kill someone with a gun (or knife) than a punch. Cops DO take into account threat levels and "reasonable force" response is a legit thing in law (at least, here it is). What weapon someone is using absolutely does and should change the response, not everything requires a bullet, Lol. I think a lot of your post forgets that we're talking about this from a cops perspective too, not a regular citizen.

"HE'S GOT A SKATEBOARD, FIRE AT WILL LADS!" - See how ridiculous that sounds?

I'm picturing the cops in the London riots who had stuff thrown at them being like "that's it lads, they got violent, start blasting!" Insanity. It seems like you think the only role of a cop is to point gun and shoot bad guy, also this is without getting into how stupid shooting a live bullet into a crowd actually is.

Has nothing to do with being bloodthirsty.  It has to do with putting the well being of law abiding citizens above that of violent criminals.  No one is talking about firing upon protesters.  You guys just love labeling rioters and violent criminals as just protesters to further your argument.

Police officers will assess the situation and handle as they see fit.  My point is that they should not have to be thinking about how the media is going to twist a justified shooting into them being a racist and ruin their lives.  And what weapon the perpetrator is using does not change that, it is the intent, as anything can be deadly.  There is no difference if he is beating a man to death with his fists or if he were stabbing them.  That's why there is no law, that I am aware of, that determines self-defense guidelines or officer conduct based on what weapon is used.  We don't need people like you saying, "But he was only using his fist to beat that person do death, why did he feel the need to shoot him. Throw that man in jail."

Torillian said:

Alright then, I'm only arguing with the person that thinks more deaths from non-guns means bats are as deadly as AR-15's. If your quote wasn't you agreeing with that portion of his argument than my mistake. 

If I put a bat and a gun on a table, which will kill someone faster?  If your answer is neither, you're correct.  Again, ANYTHING can be deadly.  It is the intent in which it is used.  I could use an AR-15 to just injure someone.  I could use a bat to kill.  This whole "we have to judge cases by what weapon was used" is a ridiculous standard, and is why it never works.  "Oh, he only hit him with X."  It only makes you look like a callous bastard to the jury, as they can picture themselves getting hit with it and would never say, "Oh, he's just hitting me with a bat, at least he's not using a gun to kill me."

Torillian said:

Previous replies not withstanding. I will say it sucks that people want to dump on the 2nd and 3rd people shot. Their understanding was that they were responding to an active shooter in a crowd. Sucks that they died but I appreciate their desire to stop the situation. If Kyle's intentions mean that the shootings were self defense than the intentions of the others should be taken into account as well. 

Except they weren't responding to an active shooter.  Active shooters don't run away after shooting one person.  They don't tell everyone chasing them that they are turning themselves into the police.  And they sure as Hell don't lower their gun when some pretends they aren't going to be a threat anymore.  The active shooter crap is just an excuse by a bunch of thugs so they don't get charged for the crap they did that night.  Like destroying property and bringing an illegal firearm to a "bar fight."

Machiavellian said:

Here is a scenario for you.  Lets say you are out and about like Kyle and you see someone break a window of a store.  You with your trusty gun point it at that person and they turn around and shot you.  Would the person who shot you be able to claim self defense.

The point is that you are not a police officer so your ability to point your gun at anyone unless they are directly attacking you goes out the window.  Once you point your gun, then the terms of engagement changes and its whoever shoots first wins the day.

Nothing make me smile more than when someone just totally do not understand context. I have no clue what the heck you are talking about that I am pushing that games make people violent.  Since it probably escaped you since you are very much so keen to not see the slight humor of walking around with your gun in your hand like Call of Duty which mind you is a game where you walk around with your gun always in your hand.

Also you have no clue on "My Way" because if I was Rittenhouse, I would have shot everyone as well because at that point he is getting attacked.  My point is that his decisions as well as the attackers lead to this situation and if he came up against the wrong people he would have been dead.

Even your reply says you would do the same stupid thing believing you are in the right because as you say, the Police was not doing anything but the police is the authority.  You going out to protect some property that isn't even yours and wind up dead, maimed or paralyzed for life, you would be thinking to yourself if not 6 feet under, why did I not just say home.

Ever hear of a citizen's arrest?  If I see someone committing a crime, it is legal for me to detain them til the authorities get there.  If he fires upon me, he would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if I survived or murder if I died.  There is no self-defense for people breaking the law in the first place.

Oh, that's not what you are implying?  Yet, you seem to be in Kyle's case.  Even though, he was very responsible with his gun, as I stated. And his only decision was to protect his community, which he had the right to do. Further enforced by the ruling of the jury. 

No, this is not Nazi Germany.  The people are the authority.  We give the government the authority to protect us, our property, and our community.  When they are told not to by a political hack in charge, we can take that authority in our own hands.  That is our right and the law.  That is why people hoped he would lose because it may put that right into jeopardy.  However, it just reinforced it.

IvorEvilen said:

Please do not put words in my mouth.  Nothing I have written has defended or justified the actions taken by the rioters or looters regarding the destruction of private property.  In fact, I have said the exact opposite.  That being said, the tales of widespread rioting and destruction through out the US was LARGELY exaggerated.  My point was that to those who did experience losses, there were financial windfalls through insurance, government aid, and/or civil lawsuits.  "Destruction of their way of life" is just hyperbole.  I would much rather rely on the legal system to sort this out, rather than vigilante justice.  I value lives more than property.


There's a pretty obvious explanation for why the Rittenhouse trial has garnered so much attention.  It is controversial.  There are two sides, not everyone agrees, and everyone felt there was a lot at stake in the trial.  I hear about Ahmaud Arbery in the news every day, so I do not know what you are talking about there, but I would agree the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was perceived as much higher stakes.  But I also notice much less controversy in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial... most people seem to agree it was murder.  Also, just in case it needs to be stated, no one is saying that every black police suspect or black criminal is killed by police... it's about the statistics.


I hope you are not saying white supremacists are not real?


The Nick Sandmann case is interesting, but it did not highlight media bias.  Like many other cultural flashpoints in America these days, the story originated from a video that was widely spreading on social media.  Obviously the media had to report on it as well, but they were reporting on a video that did not contain all the context.  As the days went on and journalists were able to do more digging, they discovered more information and revised their narratives.  There was no cover-up.  A lot of people were duped, and it did not help that the key witness, Nathan Phillips, either lied about what went down or was equally oblivious.  The biggest criticism I have is against media personalities who jumped on the story without waiting a day or two (but that's not how media works).

You say this can all could be resolved with the even the smallest amount of research, but hindsight is 20/20.  Even the March for Life rally (the reason Nick Sandmann and his classmates were in Washington DC) released a statement that criticized the students for their behavior, before walking it back a few days later.  Every lawsuit filed by Sandmann was either dismissed or eventually settled.  That does not imply guilt, but it is often cheaper to settle than to pay for lawyer and court fees.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to media companies to not just run stories on random internet videos with political agendas, without stopping to ask if there is more to the story.

Oh, don't justify it, just minimize the millions in damages the riots caused.  As well as the people who lost their lives during them.  And yes, let's just let rioters do whatever they want.  Who cares if those people actually had insurance.  Or how long it takes to get government aid, which we all pay for, including those with their houses and businesses destroyed.  Or how long and expensive civil will be.  This is not to mention the emotional and physical strain it must put on those people watching everything in their lives burn to the ground.  Who cares because we may hurt the ittle rioter scum.  Like I said, no empathy for decent citizens.  Just excuses and looking the other way for criminals.

Yea, it is about statistics.  And white people are far more likely to be shot by police officers than blacks.  Interesting since blacks make up around 50% of the violent crime.  Of course, that doesn't even take into account how many of ones that we actually get worked up about end up being justified shootings.  But, do people follow up on that.  Nope, just slap all the faces of unrepentant criminals on shirts and deify them like they are all equal.  Personally, that really dishonors the ones that weren't justified.

As far as Nick Sandman goes, that was complete bias.  It's why they were so quick to cover the story.  It feed into their narrative.  It's why they started covering the Texas school shooter...until they found out he was black.  Just the smallest amount of research and interviewing would have proven the reporting wasn't true on Sandman.  And did they give the corrections the same coverage as the initial story?  Nope.  But, that's the point.  You cover the Hell out of the initial story.  Bring on countless talking heads to talk about how horrible it and Nick was.  Wait for social media or maybe Fox News, to show the other side, which turned out to be the real story, then cover it real quick and be done.  It's no different to when newspapers run front page news for a few days, then on page 36 one day, they offer the correction.  No one reads that, and that's the point, because the initial story is in the zeitgeist.  It is completely on purpose and done with bias. 

And they settled for millions cause they knew they fucked up and may have had to pay out a larger sum.  He actually has 4 more cases going right now.  All 4 of which the judge denied their dismissal, so it will go forward.  That boy will not have to work a day in his life.  I hope the same happens with Kyle.

Torillian said:

I'm just trying to bring us back to reality here. If my child rushes me with a fork I shouldn't shoot him in response even if some people die from accidental fork stabbings. Kyle can be reasonable in his actions at the time without equating every single weapon even vaguely capable of killing someone. We aren't supercomputers but we should be able to differentiate use of force in different scenarios. 

Your mind reading skills need work. 

That's not a hypothetical.  That's called a false equivalency.  You know your child is not really trying to kill you.  But, more importantly, you can easily overpower your child.  Let's see how you do against a lunatic pedophile who was just released from a mental hospital, still had his "gift bag" and a chain in his hands, and has been screaming for someone to shoot them all day.  Then, a large group of other criminal rioters who are pissed you stopped their fun in an attempt to end the destruction of your community.

IvorEvilen said:

There are literally pictures of Kyle making white supremacist hand signs.


The very fact that there is so much disagreement and discussion in this forum is evidence enough that this is not an echo chamber.  An echo chamber is a place where everyone agrees so they feel better about themselves.  If people disagree with you, that certainly does not mean they all agree with each other.  Stop trying to deflect and with the old "if I can't convince them, they are all biased against me".

If you do not want to have a discussion, then I guess there is no sense in continuing.

Tell me you're easily duped without telling me you're easily duped. 

I love what fools the Left and media has made themselves out to be.  A massive troll job by 4chan, who bet they could get the Left to believe that anything was racist, including the internationally known OK hand sign, and won that bet just because it was something Trump does when he talks.  Talk about TDS.  The best part?  Instead of acknowledging they got had, they kept going along with it.  Now, EVERYONE is a White Supremacist.  Oh God, it's so fucking good. 

I guess Biden is a massive White Supremacist, too.