By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 22 November 2021
IvorEvilen said:
iron_megalith said:

Three people who actually came at him within 3 feet or less, with clear intent to harm, got shot.

Did he intentionally shoot anyone else that was going else where?

Also, you ignored my example of idiots like Binger who do not know how to handle a gun. This may come as a shock to folks like you but you can have something dangerous and yet wield it properly if you have proper training.

This is how I got banned from before but I'm gonna say it again. If Hiku or some other moderator twists what I say again and decides to ban me again, so be it. I barely give any shit what happens to my account on this forum.

So I'm going to hypothetically speak about this circumstance again. This is the same argument I gave last year.

Once again, when people burn down things that I've worked so hard for years, earnestly through honest means, and is my main source of keeping me financially afloat, they best put a bullet into my head while they burn it down or else I put one on theirs.

Just because these are "material" things that got lost doesn't mean it may not drive me into so much hardship that I may as well want to be dead. This is not an act of god that I can just let it slip. This is some fucking self-righteous idiot thinking he has the right to do it when I had nothing to do with what he's "protesting" about. Then again, I guess someone committing suicide because of such is the best outcoming these asshole would want.

IvorEvilen said:

Sarcasm aside, I see a lot of "the media lied about Kyle" posts here and on social media.  The notion that the media lied about Kyle is propaganda.  I consume a lot of media that is marketed towards centrist and left-wing audiences, and other than reporting on the limited information that was available at the time, I do not recall any sensationalist articles claiming he was a murderer that went out hunting for protesters (although Kyle did make some statements prior and post the incident that certainly did not help his case in the court of public opinion).  I do recall a few sensationalist posts shared on Facebook around that time (as well as cringy far-left content creators trying to capitalize on the outrage), but I saw the opposite misinformation from my conservative friends and family too.  It really ran the whole gamut.

That's not to say there weren't distasteful editorial or opinion pieces from more mainstream sources, or the occasional reporting of information that later proved to be factually inaccurate.  But anecdotally, I did not encounter any of those.  And that's part of the insidiousness of the claim.  It's nigh impossible to refute or support, but people believe it because the narrative is convenient.  Someone can compile a list of "problematic articles", but people are going to just disagree on the nuance of language, for example, crying bias over Kyle being referred to as a "killer".

And all of this is just an excuse to claim it's the medias fault, rather than acknowledge that half of the country's outrage is actually being fueled by differing opinions on the roles guns should play in society, the value of life, and the intersection of race/justice/police (I acknowledge that last point is loaded, because people are quick to point out that everyone was white in the Kenosha incident, but the contrast of the incident is hard to ignore considering the cultural climate the event took place in).  To put it more simply, people are not okay with the idea of vigilantes with guns policing our towns.  People are not okay with them getting to use the law as a shield when they get into trouble with people who are not okay with them being vigilantes.

It's not about differing opinions when you have the media with a very broad viewership or readership are preaching things that never happened in the trial. All just to keep the narrative alive. Not to mention race baiting by injecting inexistent racial elements into this case. It's not even the media only doing this. Hollywood personalities, sports athletes, senators, the fucking POTUS. They all keep making statements as if there were racial factor in this god damn incident when it's 3 white men that got shot. Even The Independent made a Freudian slip and made it so that Kyle Rittenhouse incident involved 3 black men getting shot.

So please. Spare me the bullshit.

I'm gonna have a bit more sympathy for someone out there protecting their own property, particularly their home.  Otherwise, I'm gonna trust that they have insurance and can weather the unfortunate turn of events.  If you seriously think it is worth risking your life in defense of things, well, that's your prerogative.  But we as a society still reserve the right to judge your actions.

The reality was that the vast majority of people and property were at minimal to no risk of damage over the course of the summer of 2020.  I'm sorry if you were negatively impacted by the riots in any shape or form, but I suspect most people are outraged by the hypothetical, not the actual scenario.  There are legal remedies to damages that were sustained.  But we unfortunately cannot bring the dead back to life.  While I am disappointed in the results of the Rittenhouse trial, I would rather see legislative reform rather than outrage leading people down a path to anarchy.  If both sides do not think the law can protect them, whether physical, property, or otherwise, we go down a dangerous path.

---

I cannot really comment on Binger, because myself, like many Americans, do not really care to educate myself on gun operation.  I do not need to know how to operate a firearm to know how dangerous they are.  I can see the data.  I have talked to a number of Americans who think that me not knowing something about gun operation is a "gotcha" moment.  I do not give two-shits about how to operate a gun.  It's a deadly weapon.  I have no need for such an instrument.

---

For your last point, to deny the race element in this entire discussion is kind of "missing the point"... and also assuming all of this happened in a vacuum.  This was a racially charged issue from its inception.  As another commenter pointed out above, this particular night of rioting was occurring during demonstrations following the Jacob Blake shooting.  Rittenhouse was there with a gun to assist police officers in policing demonstrations that were intended to protest excessive use of force by police and over-militarization of police, particularly against minorities and people of color (this was the political speech I was referencing in my initial post).  The fact that police did not see Rittenhouse as a threat, in contrast to the widely publicized incidents of police being too quick to shoot now and ask questions later when dealing with people of color... just seemed to provide even more evidence for people that police are crooked.

Not to mention Rittenhouse getting all buddy-buddy with white nationalists... Yikes.

I cannot convince you that media is not biased.  But there is a distinction between news reporting, editorializing, and entertainment.  None of the media I consumed was "preaching things that never happened", but there was investigative reporting, interviews, analyses of the trial, etc.  All of this was evidence-based or clarified that "details were not verified".  The more outlandish things I saw were always on social media (left and right) about completely fabricated details that I could not fathom where they were coming from.

Yes, and society can also judge the actions of those trying to destroy that property.  And sane people do not have much sympathy for people destroying property of people that have nothing to do with whatever BS thing you are rioting over and will instead sympathize with those who are trying to defend that property.  It's also pretty elitist to just assume everyone can afford and has insurance on their houses and businesses, just so you can justify that destruction in your head.  It's not just things to them, it's the destruction of their way of life.  Of course, people who like to say its just things have no empathy for those people, pr people in general, but sure as HELL wouldn't be saying the same when the riots come to their house.  That's why those bastard mayors and governors who tell the cops and National Guard to stand down have a quick change of heart once the rioters get a little too close to their families' homes.

Sadly too many people are guided by the biased media and don't look at the actual facts of the cases, or the number of cases, involved to realize that rioting, or even protesting, has no basis in reality.  There was no coverage of the black school shooter in Texas who was out on a bail of $75K less than 24 hrs of him shooting inside a school.  Shouldn't he have been shot on sight if the narrative was true.  A case in Georgia that may actually have to do with racists killing a black man hasn't gotten nearly the same coverage as the Rittenhouse case, which involved no one of color.  Why?  Because stripping law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves is more important to them than actual racism.  They also know that if the facts of the case definitely point to them being racists, the vast majority of people will agree and come together on it.  Can't have that.  Not good for ratings.

And you guys keep that White Nationalists/Supremacists narrative alive.  It's just going to make it easier for Rittenhouse to sue the ass off of these media companies, just like Nick Sandman.  The kid you guys were saying was a racist White Nationalist/Supremacist who harassed a Native American.

And if you can't see that the media is biased, then that is most likely because you yourself are biased. Too many people think that black people were shot.  That Kyle had the gun illegally.  That he crossed state lines with it, not that I think that is even illegal.  That he was marching up and down the streets all day pointing the gun at people.  That his mom drove him, which I have no idea what that has to do with anything.  Hell, people actually think Jacob Blake, the piece of garbage that the riots were even started over, is dead.  Even after the trial, some people, including people who should know better like politicians and celebrities who supposedly were following the case, were saying these things.  Why?  Because many media outlets were reporting them as pretty much fact.  They only slowly started walking it back when it was proven wrong in court and they know they have a chance of being sued over it.  These are ALL things that could have been debunked with just the smallest amount of research.  But, that wouldn't fit their agenda, so they just ran with whatever they wanted to be true, just like the Nick Sandman incident.  Again, if you can't see how biased that is, that's all you.



 

Around the Network
thismeintiel on 22 November 2021
Ryuu96 said:

thismeintiel said:

No, any sane person wants the cops to keep innocent people safe, no matter the cost to the offender.  Would it be nice if no one had to die? Sure. But the world isn't some Care Bear special.

And anything can be deadly. Yes, even a skateboard counts. People have died from being hit by those.  Hell, more people die by fists and feet than by AR-15s each year.

Uhh, I'm sorry, so we're clear, are you seriously suggesting it would be okay for a cop to fire into a crowd of rioters if they're perceived as being violent? We're talking real bullets, too.

Anything can be deadly, sure, so does that mean we just shoot at any level of danger? Ignoring the fact that while yes, anything can be deadly, some things are much more likely to be deadlier than other things if used, someone is much more likely to kill you with a bullet versus a punch, someone running towards a cop with a skateboard versus running towards them with a knife should absolutely not result in the same defensive measure for both.

There is such thing as "reasonable force" in these scenarios, with this logic, police in America would be killing basically everyone who is violent, the purpose of the police force isn't only to be a death squad, at least, not in UK.

If they are being violent towards others, and will not stop when told to, you're god damned right they have the right to stop with any means necessary.  And if they are destroying property and get violent towards someone trying to stop them, yes, they can be shot.  When you have only a split second that could decide someone dying or not, you don't exactly want cops thinking, "Well, how is this going to look to the media or the Left if I shoot this violent criminal."  Really I have little sympathy for garbage humans destroying the property and livelihood of law-abiding decent citizens, and absolutely none when they get violent towards others.  Used to be that the vast majority of citizens felt the same way.  Sadly, one side of the political spectrum currently thinks it's politically expedient for violent thugs to be deified and decent people to be demonized for defending themselves against those thugs.

So, yes, if you fear for your life, you can shoot in self-defense, or if you fear for another's life.  Your bullet and punch example falls flat when it is a fact that more people die from being hit physically than from being shot every year.  You can survive a bullet depending on where you are hit, just like Jacob Blake survived getting shot several times when he refused to drop a knife.  You can also die, or become severely brain damaged, from a single punch if you are hit hard enough and in the right spot.  Same goes for being stabbed.  So, no, what kind of weapon is used does not change the response.  The law is if you fear for your life, period.  Not if the person is holding a certain weapon or not.  That's just a ridiculous standard, probably brought on by people watching actors "survive" those kinds of things in movies.  Life isn't like the movies.  You can die by getting hit ONCE by anything if its hard enough and in the right spot. 



 

thismeintiel on 22 November 2021
RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:

Lol, who's playing a game, now. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Locking down and mandating the jab. You'd think you guys would be more sensitive to the government seizing control, given the history of that area, but oh well. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Oh no, someone on the Left has accused me of being far-right for disagreeing with them. Whatever shall I do? Oh yea, not care. It's almost like you guys have overplayed that hand too many times for it to even mean anything. Like I said, we don't care. We're done with the lies.

Indeed, I could assume what you meant based on your warped views, but still... I wanted to leave you with the option to save face. The history of Austria is that there's a precedent for a mandated jab that lasted for over three decades. The result was that the illness in question was eradicated, so a mandated jab is not harmful, but the exact opposite. The reason why the anti-COVID-19 jab is planned to be mandated from February 2022 onwards is because Austria slipped into this situation due to the government banking on the population to do the right thing voluntarily. This, however, was very ill-advised considering the strong presence of the far-right in this country. Not only did the traditional far-right political party rally hard against common sense since the start of the pandemic, but another two new parties who are all about the single issue of anti-vax gained traction, one of which got into the regional parliament of Upper Austria. It's no surprise that Upper Austria with its highest concentration of stupid people is now due for the strictest measures to regain control of a situation that has spun out of control. Austrian's population at large isn't opposed to the government taking action, rather it's the opposite because the seemingly oblivious bunch of government politicians is finally starting to do their job after ignoring the analyses of experts for months.

The prerequisite to be against vaccination is the belief that vaccination is more harmful than the illness it works against, a belief that is neither based on science nor facts.

What exactly do you mean in the context of Austria when you say that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

I don't go around and call anyone I disagree with far-right. I say that you are far-right based on your irrational behavior and argumentation that is basically the textbook definition of a far-right mindset. I don't expect to change your mind either, because a defining trait of the far-right is that they are so far gone that they can't be reasoned with anymore. This really shows in the discussion about Austria where you seriously believe that a mandated jab is something negative when it's realistically the only way to put a country with far too many stupid people in it back on the right track. Without the mandated jab, Austria would be bound to lock down again in 2022 because the voluntary vaccination rate is far below the necessary threshold.

As for the USA portion of the discussion, you live in a country where you personally would rather trust teenagers with assault rifles than the police to protect its citizens.

Lol, I don't need to save face.  Especially for someone who labels a group of people making their own health decision, stupid.  Hmm, does that area of the world have some point in history when a group of people were labeled and ostracized?  I don't know, can't think of it right now.

The funny/sad thing is, 2/3 of your population is "vaccinated."  That's actually a really big portion.  And yet, you're still seeing spikes.  Now, your government wants to blame the unvaccinated.  Hmm, there's that singling out a certain group of people, again.  God, I wish I could remember why that seems familiar.  Anyway, if the vaccine worked like it should, why should you even care if 1/3 of your population is unvaccinated?  Let those dummies get sick or die, right?  I mean the rest of you are protected from Covid, right?  Oh, that's because the vaccine isn't working like it should and vaccinated people are still getting sick and some are even dying, either with Covid or from reactions to the vaccine.  And that's the unvaccinated people's fault?  But, I thought you were protected?  There's a logic hole there.  Of course, the government doesn't want you blaming the vaccine that was promised to be a real vaccine and inoculate you, but instead is mostly therapeutic.  And seems to wear off after a few months, hence the 3rd and 4th booster shot.  Wonder when the 5th and 6th will hit.  Man, Big Pharma, who the Left kept warning about, is making a killing off of a virus with a 98% survival rate, huh?

So, what are you going to do when nearly all the people are vaccinated and people are still getting sick and dying, like in Isreal, which is 80% vaccinated and most new cases are vaccinated people?  Arrest the 10%-15% who still refuse to get it? Maybe put them in reeducation camps?  Hmm, still ringing a bell.  Oh well.

So, yea, I will live in a country where we will try our damnedest to stay free.  Even when the cops are told to stand down and we have to defend ourselves. 



 

iron_megalith on 22 November 2021
IvorEvilen said:

I'm gonna have a bit more sympathy for someone out there protecting their own property, particularly their home. Otherwise, I'm gonna trust that they have insurance and can weather the unfortunate turn of events.  If you seriously think it is worth risking your life in defense of things, well, that's your prerogative.  But we as a society still reserve the right to judge your actions.

The reality was that the vast majority of people and property were at minimal to no risk of damage over the course of the summer of 2020.  I'm sorry if you were negatively impacted by the riots in any shape or form, but I suspect most people are outraged by the hypothetical, not the actual scenario.  There are legal remedies to damages that were sustained.  But we unfortunately cannot bring the dead back to life.  While I am disappointed in the results of the Rittenhouse trial, I would rather see legislative reform rather than outrage leading people down a path to anarchy.  If both sides do not think the law can protect them, whether physical, property, or otherwise, we go down a dangerous path.

Lmao. You really think a lot of insurance companies will pay for everything? How naive. They will fight tooth and nail to only pay the bare minimum of what you should be getting.

IvorEvilen said:

I cannot really comment on Binger, because myself, like many Americans, do not really care to educate myself on gun operation.  I do not need to know how to operate a firearm to know how dangerous they are.  I can see the data.  I have talked to a number of Americans who think that me not knowing something about gun operation is a "gotcha" moment.  I do not give two-shits about how to operate a gun.  It's a deadly weapon.  I have no need for such an instrument.


It's not a gotcha moment. It's a prime example of people not knowing what the fuck they're talking about and trying to make a point. Nobody told him to get hold of the gun and point it at the jury in that manner. It's his ignorance seeping out. If you don't give two-shits about it when he's trying to make a closing argument, then that's just hilarious. If you feel that you don't need guns, then you be you. But let people who are decent to have them if they feel that they need it. If we live in an alternate reality and succeed in taking away guns, another thing will just emerge from it. Or the bad ones will have it. Case in point. Nazi Germany.

IvorEvilen said:

For your last point, to deny the race element in this entire discussion is kind of "missing the point"... and also assuming all of this happened in a vacuum.  This was a racially charged issue from its inception.  As another commenter pointed out above, this particular night of rioting was occurring during demonstrations following the Jacob Blake shooting.  Rittenhouse was there with a gun to assist police officers in policing demonstrations that were intended to protest excessive use of force by police and over-militarization of police, particularly against minorities and people of color (this was the political speech I was referencing in my initial post).  The fact that police did not see Rittenhouse as a threat, in contrast to the widely publicized incidents of police being too quick to shoot now and ask questions later when dealing with people of color... just seemed to provide even more evidence for people that police are crooked.

Not to mention Rittenhouse getting all buddy-buddy with white nationalists... Yikes.

I cannot convince you that media is not biased.  But there is a distinction between news reporting, editorializing, and entertainment.  None of the media I consumed was "preaching things that never happened", but there was investigative reporting, interviews, analyses of the trial, etc.  All of this was evidence-based or clarified that "details were not verified".  The more outlandish things I saw were always on social media (left and right) about completely fabricated details that I could not fathom where they were coming from.

Yes. You cannot convince me as this post of yours reeks so much bias. I'm merely killing time here and having some fun trying to see how a lot of you folks twist this thing to make it seem like there was no justice here. It's like a small version of Twitter in here. Nothing but an Echo chamber to validate your beliefs.

By the way, you forgot to mention that Kyle was also there helping the community before the shooting happened. Also if I remember correctly, his friends and family live in Kenosha. But who cares. He shouldn't have drove 20+ miles to go to a community and try to help. It's not as if violence wasn't being rampant throughout that time to which the media would say, it has been a "fiery but peaceful protests" while a whole fucking building burns at the background.

One last thing. If you're trying to disparage his character for being a white supremacist because he maybe friends with one. Be careful who you make friends with. If you are friends with closet Neo-Nazi, by that logic, I will label you a Neo-Nazi as well. Birds of the same feather right? What a great argument!

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 22 November 2021

Torillian on 22 November 2021
thismeintiel said:
Ryuu96 said:

Uhh, I'm sorry, so we're clear, are you seriously suggesting it would be okay for a cop to fire into a crowd of rioters if they're perceived as being violent? We're talking real bullets, too.

Anything can be deadly, sure, so does that mean we just shoot at any level of danger? Ignoring the fact that while yes, anything can be deadly, some things are much more likely to be deadlier than other things if used, someone is much more likely to kill you with a bullet versus a punch, someone running towards a cop with a skateboard versus running towards them with a knife should absolutely not result in the same defensive measure for both.

There is such thing as "reasonable force" in these scenarios, with this logic, police in America would be killing basically everyone who is violent, the purpose of the police force isn't only to be a death squad, at least, not in UK.

So, yes, if you fear for your life, you can shoot in self-defense, or if you fear for another's life.  Your bullet and punch example falls flat when it is a fact that more people die from being hit physically than from being shot every year.  You can survive a bullet depending on where you are hit, just like Jacob Blake survived getting shot several times when he refused to drop a knife.  You can also die, or become severely brain damaged, from a single punch if you are hit hard enough and in the right spot.  Same goes for being stabbed.  So, no, what kind of weapon is used does not change the response.  The law is if you fear for your life, period.  Not if the person is holding a certain weapon or not.  That's just a ridiculous standard, probably brought on by people watching actors "survive" those kinds of things in movies.  Life isn't like the movies.  You can die by getting hit ONCE by anything if its hard enough and in the right spot. 

@bolded. Do you recognize that there are many more people hit physically each year than getting shot? We don't base the risk to life of an action on how many people in total get killed from it each year. If that was the case driving a car is less risky than deep sea diving or tightrope walking. I mean so many more people die of driving I guess they're basically the same. 



...

Around the Network
iron_megalith on 22 November 2021
Ryuu96 said:
thismeintiel said:

If they are being violent towards others, and will not stop when told to, you're god damned right they have the right to stop with any means necessary.  And if they are destroying property and get violent towards someone trying to stop them, yes, they can be shot.  When you have only a split second that could decide someone dying or not, you don't exactly want cops thinking, "Well, how is this going to look to the media or the Left if I shoot this violent criminal."  Really I have little sympathy for garbage humans destroying the property and livelihood of law-abiding decent citizens, and absolutely none when they get violent towards others.  Used to be that the vast majority of citizens felt the same way.  Sadly, one side of the political spectrum currently thinks it's politically expedient for violent thugs to be deified and decent people to be demonized for defending themselves against those thugs.

So, yes, if you fear for your life, you can shoot in self-defense, or if you fear for another's life.  Your bullet and punch example falls flat when it is a fact that more people die from being hit physically than from being shot every year.  You can survive a bullet depending on where you are hit, just like Jacob Blake survived getting shot several times when he refused to drop a knife.  You can also die, or become severely brain damaged, from a single punch if you are hit hard enough and in the right spot.  Same goes for being stabbed.  So, no, what kind of weapon is used does not change the response.  The law is if you fear for your life, period.  Not if the person is holding a certain weapon or not.  That's just a ridiculous standard, probably brought on by people watching actors "survive" those kinds of things in movies.  Life isn't like the movies.  You can die by getting hit ONCE by anything if its hard enough and in the right spot. 

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!"

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.

Except the skateboard was used to hit a person. In before you make a stupid argument that it's non-leth- Oh. :P

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/25/sports/a-security-worker-confronted-the-skateboarders-he-ended-up-with-brain-damage.html

Kyle had a gun. Huber had a skateboard. Kyle was running away. As rough as it sounds, Huber did something stupid and made his day. That's all there is to it. Hope you come to accept it as time goes by.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 22 November 2021

Torillian on 22 November 2021
iron_megalith said:
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!"

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.

Except the skateboard was used to hit a person. In before you make a stupid argument that it's non-lethal. :P

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/25/sports/a-security-worker-confronted-the-skateboarders-he-ended-up-with-brain-damage.html

Kyle had a gun. Huber had a skateboard. Huber did something stupid and made his day. That's all there is to it.

Is your argument therefore that any weapon that could be deadly should be met with the same use of force as any other weapon that could be deadly regardless of their likelihood to end in death? 

A skateboard can hurt, but I would gladly face someone with a skateboard over someone with a knife, and gladly face a knife over an AR-15, and gladly face an AR-15 over a tank. The idea that all of those attacks should be met with the same level of force makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone starts throwing punches outside a bar should police shoot them just in case? 



...

iron_megalith on 22 November 2021
Torillian said:
iron_megalith said:

Except the skateboard was used to hit a person. In before you make a stupid argument that it's non-lethal. :P

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/25/sports/a-security-worker-confronted-the-skateboarders-he-ended-up-with-brain-damage.html

Kyle had a gun. Huber had a skateboard. Huber did something stupid and made his day. That's all there is to it.

Is your argument therefore that any weapon that could be deadly should be met with the same use of force as any other weapon that could be deadly regardless of their likelihood to end in death? 

A skateboard can hurt, but I would gladly face someone with a skateboard over someone with a knife, and gladly face a knife over an AR-15, and gladly face an AR-15 over a tank. The idea that all of those attacks should be met with the same level of force makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone starts throwing punches outside a bar should police shoot them just in case? 

First of all, I will say that this statement of mine has nothing to do with legality of this incident. So just in case someone wants to twist my words again. This post is just talking about the reality of nature.

First rule of nature, you respect whoever has the advantage. You don't go crying when you try to fight someone with fists and up losing because he had a gun or is more experienced than you. Huber was a fucking idiot. He wanted to play "hero" because he was convinced he was. He chased Kyle, tried smack him, got shot and died. I mean who knew someone's self preservation will kick in when you try to smack someone in the head with the skateboard during a really incident where a mob is involved. It's a pure failure of common sense on his behalf.



Torillian on 22 November 2021
iron_megalith said:
Torillian said:

Is your argument therefore that any weapon that could be deadly should be met with the same use of force as any other weapon that could be deadly regardless of their likelihood to end in death? 

A skateboard can hurt, but I would gladly face someone with a skateboard over someone with a knife, and gladly face a knife over an AR-15, and gladly face an AR-15 over a tank. The idea that all of those attacks should be met with the same level of force makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone starts throwing punches outside a bar should police shoot them just in case? 

First of all, I will say that this statement of mine has nothing to do with legality of this incident. So just in case someone wants to twist my words again. This post is just talking about the reality of nature.

First rule of nature, you respect whoever has the advantage. You don't go crying when you try to fight someone with fists and up losing because he had a gun or is more experienced than you. Huber was a fucking idiot. He wanted to play "hero" because he was convinced he was. He died for it. I mean who knew someone's self preservation will kick in when you try to smack someone in the head with the skateboard during a really chaotic incident. It's pure failure of common sense on his behest.

so it's not just as deadly.....we're at least clear on that?



...

iron_megalith on 22 November 2021
Torillian said:
iron_megalith said:

First of all, I will say that this statement of mine has nothing to do with legality of this incident. So just in case someone wants to twist my words again. This post is just talking about the reality of nature.

First rule of nature, you respect whoever has the advantage. You don't go crying when you try to fight someone with fists and up losing because he had a gun or is more experienced than you. Huber was a fucking idiot. He wanted to play "hero" because he was convinced he was. He died for it. I mean who knew someone's self preservation will kick in when you try to smack someone in the head with the skateboard during a really chaotic incident. It's pure failure of common sense on his behest.

so it's not just as deadly.....we're at least clear on that?

Doesn't matter. That's not my argument.